Ian said to Dan:
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.
dmb says:
What!? We only have SOMist language? Are you saying that the rejection of SOM
also entails an opposition to any rational definitions and conclusions? You
don't think that intellect or philosophy should be constrained by logic?
Oh. My. God.
That's not what it means to reject SOM but rather it's simply a rejection of
intellectual quality. It's just knuckle-dragging, reactionary
anti-intellectualism. This view is wildly inconsistent with Pirsig's root
expansion of rationality and totally undermines his project! Plus it doesn't
make any sense, defies the textual evidence from Pirsig and lots of other
thinkers too. It's wrong in every way that I can think of.
"Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them."
(Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
"A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any
metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.)
"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and
economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Qqulity satisfies these." (Pirsig in
Lila, chapter 8.)
At the end of chapter 29 in Lila, Pirsig says, "The MOQ also says that DQ - the
value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one,
or a brilliant experiment of a confusing, inconclusive one - is another matter
altogether. ...Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting
edge of scientific progress itself."
Pirsig says his central aim is to show how "RATIONALITY can be tremendously
improved, expanded and made far more effective through a formal recognition of
Quality in its operation." (ZAMM 278, emphasis is mine) It's not just a new
philosophy, he says, it's "even broader than that - new form of spiritual
RATIONALITY". (ZAMM 358, emphasis is Pirsig's) "He did nothing for Quality or
the Tao. What benefited was reason." (ZAMM 257)
"Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other" (ZAMM
358) back in the days of Plato. "It's been necessary since before the time of
Socrates to reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational
mind for an understanding of nature's order", Pirsig says, but now it's time
for "reassimilating those passions which were originally fled from. The
passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's consciousness, are a part
of nature's order too. The central part." (ZAMM 294)
Do NOT confuse the disease with the patient. SOM is the disease. Intellect is
the patient who needs to be healed, not the disease that needs to be destroyed.
To kill the patient is to totally miss the point, is malpractice of epic
proportions. Obviously, there is no shortage of textual evidence for this point.
And this confusion is exactly the mistake that leads know-nothing trolls like
Marsha to adopt her vacuous nihilism and her sophomoric relativism. Follow her
at your own peril.
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
