Hello everyone On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 2:03 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Pirsig said: > "I think this conclusion ["SOM and the intellectual level are one and the > same."] undermines the MOQ, .... 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. ..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 commented: > 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: > > Comparing one thinker to another is not the problem. Dan: Right. The problem is classifying an original work by comparing it to other thinkers by claiming they are all saying the same thing even when they are not. > 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. Dan: It can be evil when it is used to undermine original thought. It becomes a case of social patterns usurping intellectual patterns. > 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. Dan: Sure he does. Much of his reading is geared toward discovering if anyone is saying the same thing as the MOQ. He even admits to being a poor scholar for his predilection toward selective reading. > 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 illuminating and/or clarifying (except > Marsha, apparently). Dan: Sure. Much is gained by comparative analysis as long as the MOQ isn't classified as being the same as this and the same as that. > Besides, if one wanted to present an original philosophical work, why > would anyone want to present it in an internet discussion group? Dan: I have no answer for that one. I'm guessing they wouldn't. Rather they would write their own book and present it in much the same way as other philosophers. Either it stands the scrutiny of others or it doesn't. It seems intellectually dishonest to take the work of someone else, change it to suit your own purpose, and then claim the original author was wrong about his own work. I don't think there is anything wrong with exploring new insights in this discussion group as long as it pertains to the MOQ by clarifying issues heretofore obscured. But when those 'insights' are shown to demean and undermine the MOQ, then we should examine the veracity of them and adjust our thinking accordingly. > 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". > Dan: That's exactly right. Most people are not reaching up to what he's saying. They keep finding all these other philosophers that are saying the same thing as he is. But they're not! Not if you genuinely understand the MOQ. > > But more specifically, the problem that's getting politely smacked down is > this "insight" that Marsha shares with Platt and Bo (the view that says > "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. [...] 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. > > > > dmb say: > > Yes, that just blows my mind. What kind of person can ignore that? If the > author himself tells you directly, by name, that you are mistaken and you > still don't take heed, you are either an epic genius or you're just very > unrealistic, if not delusional. > Dan: Yes, that's the thing. We must be willing to be wrong, not stick to our guns and damn the torpedoes. There is no shame in being wrong. That's how we learn. We never learn a thing by being right. > > But again, notice the language that Pirsig uses to describe the correct > relation between SOM and the MOQ. "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 see a lowering of the quality of > the MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it > OPPOSES." He says it three times. You can't equate the MOQ's intellectual > level with the very thing that the MOQ opposes. That's the formulation that > undermines the MOQ, not to mention intellectual quality in the MOQ. > Dan: Yes, and so a philosopher drops the 'insight' and moves on to new and better things while a philosophologist clings ever more tightly to that 'insight' since they have classified the MOQ into something they know and not something new and original. Thanks, 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
