Hello everyone On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > Dan: I tend to disagree with this though I do see your point. Outside of a few contributors here, I don't see that anyone is actually reaching up to what Robert Pirsig is saying. They're approaching it in the same tired way they've approached everything in life. And I don't mean to be dismissive. I realize what RMP is saying is rather challenging. But when he outright points us in the direction we should be going and others say, no, that's not correct, it is frustrating to say the least. What's more, they interpret what RMP is saying in their own fashion with no regard to the value of his words. I do not feel we are not beholden to SOMist language any more than we are to seeing the world as composed of only subjects and objects. Rationality and logic do not depend on subjects and objects. The MOQ makes use of patterns of quality to interpret the world, expand rationality, and improve logic. > > 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. > Dan: Exactly. Yet at the same time, there are those here who insist we as individual subjects experience a world made up of objects. Even though Robert Pirsig is quite clear in saying the MOQ opposes any such notion--that the central reality of the MOQ isn't a subject or an object--these folk continue arguing in favor of subjects experiencing objective reality. Bodvar spent countless years harping on this idea. Yet it was clear he had to dismiss most everything about the MOQ to reach such a conclusion. Now, we have David Harding, David Morey, Marsha, and others all continuing along this very same route. No matter who tries to dissuade them, even Robert Pirsig, they keep on clinging to what they know in favor of letting go and taking a chance on seeing what the MOQ is saying. Thank you, 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
