Marsha said dmb:
It's interesting that you are ignoring the subject/topic, philosophology,
where RMP states:
"Historically music comes before the intellectual analysis of music and
therefore is not dependent on it. Musicology, art and literary criticism, and
philosophology are described in Lila as parasitic fields that sometimes try to
control their host." (RMP, 'LILA's Child', Annotation 54
dmb says:
Ignoring the topic of philosophology? That's not true at all. Yesterday in
this thread I said, "Comparing one thinker to another is not the problem.
Original thinking is better than comparative analysis and that's what separates
a philosopher from a philosophologist but that doesn't mean that philosophology
is evil or whatever. Pirsig compares and contrasts all kinds of thinkers
throughout both his books. He draws a contrast between his Quality and Hegel's
Absolute and Plato's Good, for example, and says Plotinus and Eckhart are his
favorite mystics. He was impressed with the number of fits and matches he found
in James's work. He compares his Quality with the Tao and his philosophy agrees
with the perennial philosophy, Zen Buddhism, philosophical mysticism,
pragmatism, radical empiricism. I don't suppose anyone could be foolish enough
to believe we should avoid such comparisons (except Marsha, apparently) or
foolish enough to believe that such comparisons are not illuminat
ing and/or clarifying (except Marsha, apparently). Besides, if one wanted to
present an original philosophical work, why would anyone want to present it in
an internet discussion group? A forum like this has its own kind of dynamism
anyway; it's a place where you have to respond to whatever comes up and
otherwise think on your feet. It's almost like a living conversation and that
should be enough to keep things from getting too static. The problem with
philosophology, as you can see from Pirsig's comments, is the dismissive,
undermining, subordination of the MOQ by those who "classify it so that they
don't have to see it as anything new." That's what he said in Liverpool too,
where he objected to the philosophologist who would dismiss the MOQ for saying
what's already been said and doing what's already been done. This kind of
classification is not done for the purpose of illuminating or clarifying the
MOQ but rather the opposite. It just puts the MOQ is a pigeon hole, slaps
a label on it, puts it in a drawer and forgets about it. This is done, Pirsig
says, "by people who are not seeking to understand what is written"."
But I guess you just ignored that, huh Marsha? Hypocrite.
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
