xx reply is for tomorrow , Dan http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm
2013/4/22 Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> > In this exchange Dan said > "We need to reach out to a more expanded rationality offered by the MOQ" > > Precisely. These exchanges about Bob's response to Bo and Platt are (sadly > as Dan says) well rehearsed here. > > YES there is "some truth" in seeing "good old fashioned rational intellect" > in the Intellectual level, but as Bob, says, to do so is to appear to > "dismiss" what is distinctive about the MoQ. > > And YES, in that level we are in some sense suspended in SOM language, > UNLESS we do that reaching out. > > Bob's point always was about "intent" - ie WHY say something. Not simply > whether it is logically rationally "true". The "radical" empirical view > encourages us not to jump (too quickly) to objects as the subjects of our > rational logical intellectual discourse - to allow some opportunity for > that reaching out. > > Logically the SOMism vs MOQ-Intellect debate IS interminable - that's the > point. It is only broken by deliberate choice to reach out to expanded > MoQish rationality - one not dependent entirely on those mental constructs > we call subjects and objects. > > Ian > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > 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
