Snip , Dan. I agree these are a couple of great quotes. Here Robert Pirsig seems to be saying that yes, he (like anyone else who manipulates symbolic English language representing reality) uses subject/object reasoning to explicate the MOQ and yet that doesn't necessarily mean we as readers should stop there, as Platt and Bo have done
--------------------------------------------------- (Adrie) Hi Dan, long time no see. I think there is nothing wrong with subject/object reasoning,there is something terrably wrong with subject/object metaphysiks. very strange,people are trying to restrict reality to only and exclusively to be understood as subject/object only related. facts derived from value's value's derived from facts expierence comes first expierience creates reality etc, al these statements are denoting a realityspectrum that goes far above the subject/object theme solely. expierience "is" reality seems to connote that participating is creating.we left our role as pure observer. maintaining all this in a subject/object environment only would restrict the debate into an experiment labeled 'simplicity' Adrie 2013/4/21 Dan Glover <[email protected]> > Hello everyone > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:57 PM, david buchanan <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > dmb says: > > > > Yes, it is good to be reminded of what these two quotes are actually > > about, rather than some weird distortion that Marsha wants to impose on > > them. > > > > Platt said: > > After all, the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning. > > > > Pirsig replied: > > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures > > such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known. > SOM > > reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ is > not > > subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember that the central > > reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is > > understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind. > > Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as > > saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn't > > tell us anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn't > > tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ." (RMP, 'LILA's Child', > > Annotation 132) > > > > > Dan: > I agree these are a couple of great quotes. Here Robert Pirsig seems to be > saying that yes, he (like anyone else who manipulates symbolic English > language representing reality) uses subject/object reasoning to explicate > the MOQ and yet that doesn't necessarily mean we as readers should stop > there, as Platt and Bo have done. > > We need to reach out to a more expanded rationality offered by the MOQ and > yet at the same time we must not lose sight of the need to make it > understandable to a six year old. To that end, we should make it as simple > as possible rather than endlessly twisting words into nonsensical notions > that have no relationship with the world in general. > > > > Platt:So, I fully agree with Bo’s insight that the SOM and the > > intellectual level are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to > > avoid losing it and sinking back to “anything goes” irrationalism or a > > “because God says so” mentality, we need to recognize its vulnerability > to > > attacks from academic philosophers, social do-gooders, spiritual > > evangelists, and its own internal paradoxes. To that end, the MOQ is the > > best S/O answer I’ve found yet. > > > > > > Pirsig:"I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is > > obviously not Platt’s intention. It is like saying that science is > really a > > form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has the effect > > dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ is in opposition > > to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of that system > > which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have read that the MOQ is the > > same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, James, Peirce, Nieztsche, > > Bergson, and many others even though these people are not held to be > saying > > the same as each other. This kind of comparison is what I have meant by > the > > term, “philosophology.” It is done by people who are not seeking to > > understand what is written but only to classify it so that they don’t > have > > to see it as anything new. God knows the MOQ has never had two better > > friends than Bo and Platt, so this is no criticism of their otherwise > > brilliant thinking. It’s just that I see a lowering of the quality of the > > MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it > > opposes." > > > > Dan: > Now, here I understand Robert Pirsig as saying in order to begin forming an > understanding with the MOQ we need to put aside what we know in favor of > what we do not know. That doesn't necessarily mean we must forego the > studying of other philosophers (even though I pretty much leave that to the > scholars here) but rather leave off with the classifying of what the MOQ > has to say in comparison with what has been said. > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > That's the view being politely smacked down by Pirsig: "Bo’s insight that > > the SOM and the intellectual level are one and the same". > > > Dan: > Yes there is that, sure. From what I gather, Bo's 'insight' was so > completely incongruous with the MOQ that it was given short shrift in the > Lila's Child annotations. I am pretty sure that's why Bo was disappointed > in the book. > > But there is more here: Robert Pirsig seems to be saying that rather than > comparing it with all the philosophers who came before, we should be > seeking to understand something new like the MOQ, where the central reality > is experience and not the conceptions arising from experience. Yes, I know > he uses the qualifier 'direct' with experience but there is no need for > that... not if we understand what he's saying. > > See, Bo and Platt are trapped. They believe we experience static quality, > that our intellect is ruled by subjects and objects, and consequently they > are forced into denying the most important part of the MOQ, namely its > central reality. This type of thinking undermines the MOQ. And yes, they, > like others here, were very good at picking and choosing selective quotes > to bolster their opinions even to the point of claiming Robert Pirsig is > wrong about his own metaphysics. > > What I find both sad and frustrating is that Robert Pirsig has directly > addressed these concerns and yet so many people continue to find ways to > ignore it. And no, I am not jumping on the 'pick on Marsha' bandwagon in > saying that though I do think her continued support of Bo's 'insight' tends > to put her in a somewhat dubious light. > > Thank you, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
