Hi Ian Everyone here tries to add something more than SOM into the debate and that is: Rhetoric Quality, which can't be defined in SOM terms.
SOMe do it better than others, right? JAn ANders 23 apr 2013 kl. 09.44 skrev Ian Glendinning: > Hi Dan, > > You said in response to dmb ... > 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. > > I see the same point, but maybe disagree where the problem lies. (You and > dmb both bring in "intent" to understand and agree understandings - as I > did). In fact, I think most people ARE "trying" to reach out to that, and > do understand that that is the difference which Pirsig brings, but .... and > here's the big but .... we only seem to have SOmist language for our > discourse, when it comes to any kind of argument we expect to lead to any > "rational" definitions and conclusions. > > I'm OK with that, because I don't feel bound with intellect or philosophy > being constrained by that kind of logic. Pirsig used a greater aesthetic in > his rhetorical communications - and we find quality in him for that very > reason. > > **** > My axioms were so clean-hewn, > The joins of ‘thus’ and ‘therefore’ neat > But, I admit > Life would not fit > Between straight lines > And all the cornflowers said was ‘blue,’ > All summer long, so blue. > So when the sea came in and with one wave > Threatened to wash my edifice away - > I let it. > > Marianne Jones > **** > Let it go. > Let the SOMist debate go. > Ian > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > 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
