Fair enough Jan, roughly yes. (Not sure I would necessarily qualify Quality with "rhetoric" alone, wider aesthetics, experiences, more generally.)
But the point is yes - I'm sure most people are trying to do that - why else spend time here ? The problem is with SOMism (Doh!) , not with individuals in general. The point I react badly to is criticism of other individuals motives, particularly anonymous generalisations like "people". BTW did I mention hypocrisy ;-) Ian On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 > 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
