xxdmb says to Adrie Plato. Yea, it's important to understand why Pirsig opposes him. And since the whole history of philosophy is a footnote to Plato, as they say, Pirsig's opposition to Plato amount to an opposition to the whole history of philosophy - or rather opposition to the "Platonism" that runs throughout the whole tradition. Pirsig definitely has some allies and friends who join him is this defiance. In pragmatic circles these days "Platonism" has become a dirty word, an accusation. Plato was already being seriously challenged by philosophers a hundred years ago. William James, taking inspiration from Bergson (the Nobel Prize winning French philosopher) attacked the Platonic tradition for being excessively intellectual, viciously abstract. (Adr) mmm,nice, here on the border with France there is still a vivid existentialism scene,goes for Flanders along with our bilingual historical context and the rememberance of JPSartre. to give an example, simple your sentence "in pragmatic circles etc"the way its phrased towards denotation is used here as""pragamtism" has become a dirty word, an accusation, here they say, whats the fucking use of pragmatism.Here on the old continent nobody really likes pragmatism all that much.Maybe this will sound odd to Americans, but pragmatism is too daring for Europeans.(keep in mind , not for me) Bergson is still very well understood here,and cherised , like Sartre ,but really nearly nobody here is rejecting the vicious abstractionism derived from Plato's dialogues alltogether. there is a shift , under the influence of the American pragmatici to oppose to indeed, the excessively intellectual overkill capacity of Plato, !Sartre!;;;;But personally i do not agree to leave Plato as 'obsolete', i understand why Pirsig is opposing the framework(thanks for your clarifications),and i agree on Pirsig's points of view for the matter of the framework'immutable' but i can and will not reject the "excessively intellectual, viciously abstract"context as to be abandoned.To many material that is still unseen will die in this proces. should we question the Platonic tradition all the time?yep(imho)but for other reasons.
Dmb As James tells it (in "A Pluralistic Universe) Bergson absolutely inverts the traditional platonic doctrine. Unlike Plato, Bergson held that intellectual knowledge was the more superficial kind and instead of being the ONLY adequate kind of knowledge, it is grossly inadequate. "Its only superiority is the practical one of enabling us to make short cuts through experience and thereby save time," James says. "The one thing it cannot do is to reveal the nature of things." If you want to know the nature of reality, concepts will not help you. To know reality itself, he says, you must, "Dive back into the flux itself". "If you wish to KNOW reality, that flux which Platonism, in its strange belief that only the immutable is excellent, has always spurned; turn your face toward sensation, that flesh-bound thing which rationalism has always loaded with abuse. ...The essence of life is its continuously changing character; but our concepts are all discontinuous and fixed, ... these concepts are not PARTS of reality, not real positions taken by it, but SUPPOSITIONS rather, notes taken by ourselves, and you can no more dip up the substance of reality with them than you can dip up water with a net, however finely meshed." (Adr) Nice!thanks for writing and presenting this material, David, this is very clear and is showing WJ's insights in an understandable way,.....raising questions for me personally at the same time. DMB I think this is also the main thrust of Pirsig's project. Where Plato and Socrates subordinated experience to intellect, subordinated reality to concepts, Pirsig (and James and Bergson, etc..) absolutely invert that priority. Instead, Pirsig subordinates concepts to experience Hopefully, that makes sense to you and you'll share it with your son. Adr of course i will share it with my son, but understand he is a novice still,and can only work with this if he also reads the headlines of WJ and Sartre first. But this is a very good step up. (one of the tresholds to get over for him, is to step out of his code-line thinking) he thinks in nested functions all the time. Thanks David. 2013/4/26 david buchanan <[email protected]> > Ian said to Dan: > ... I just don't see anyone (other than dmb ironically ;-) "arguing in > favor of subjects experiencing objective reality". > > > Dan replied: > What? Really? Then I take it you haven't been reading any of the > discussions between David Harding and me, or between David Morey and me. > They are both pretty adamant about people experiencing static quality, > which if you look at it logically, breaks down to an independent reality > existing apart from the individual, or to a subject experiencing objective > reality. In doing so, they are elevating static quality as the central > reality in the MOQ. David Harding even admits to doing so. And if you > have been reading dmb's posts in the manner you suggest, then we must be > reading things differently. I have never in all the years here read him in > that way. > > > dmb says: > Thanks Dan, but I did make that mistake too. It takes one to know one, > right? And I was once where they are now. It was Paul Turner who opened my > eyes, in fact, and I remember thanking him for it in Liverpool while he and > I were talking to Pirsig. Pirsig said, basically, "yep, I noticed that". I > think Paul has the chops to go professional if he wants to. It took a while > to convince me and another guy named Roger patiently tried over and over to > show me that I was still thinking in SOM terms. He was really good at it > and he was as patient as a saint but, sadly, it never clicked in my mind > until after he left the forum. Oh boy, would we have a conversation now. > I'd begin by thanking him and apologizing for my thickness. My point? I > know what it's like to be Krimel or the other Davids (Harding and Morey). > Been there, done that. Maybe someday they'll thank you, Dan. Who knows? > Anything is possible. > > > Ian said: > I honestly still believe the whole long-running argument is simply a > SOMist language communication problem - that we ALL share since Aristotle - > particularly if we take the "critical" stance with those we are arguing > "against". Being more charitable I take a more "fluid integrative" view of > those I am debating "with". Critique against - is inherently SOMist. > > Dan replied: > What you seem to be saying is that if someone is on a low quality journey > we who know better shouldn't criticize them or attempt to point the way to > higher quality ideas. By being 'charitable' we basically don't care whether > or not these folk gain any knowledge about the MOQ. Is that right? I will > for the moment assume there are those here with a greater grasp of the MOQ > than others. Perhaps that isn't charitable but life is like that. There are > experts in certain fields and then there are laypeople who may possess > adequate knowledge and yet they haven't acquired the ability of an expert > who has spent tens of thousands of hours honing their skills. Are you > saying the experts here should just shut up and take a more fluid > integrative approach? > > > > dmb says: > Well, I look at Mr. Charitable's short paragraph and wonder if he strained > his arm patting himself on the back. His main point seems to be, "Ian is a > great guy," as opposed to those stingy Aristotelean SOMists who argue or > criticize. "Critique against - is inherently SOMist," he says > (self-servingly). How or why argument and criticism are "inherently SOMist" > is never explained or justified in any way. It's totally obvious, I think, > that Ian is just trying to make his inability to deal with arguments and > criticism into some kind of virtue. > > But the moment you stop to think about it, hopefully, you can see what a > load of bullshit it is. Who, in their right mind, thinks it wrong or > inappropriate to argue, debate or critique ideas in a philosophical > discussion group? What in the world could be MORE appropriate, given the > context, given the point and purpose of such discussions? When you stop to > think about it, Ian's assertion is outrageous, totally implausible, > face-saving, evasive bullshit. It's despicable and openly contemptuous of > intellectual. It makes me feel sick. Seriously. I have a negative physical > reaction to this kind of anti-intellectual drivel. I think Pirsig is quite > right to insist that truth, science, and intellect are NOT amoral. I mean, > it's not just stupidity but also a kind of sleaziness that makes me want to > take a shower. Yuk! I use the word "drivel" (like drool or slobber) for a > real reason, you know? It's like this disgusting stuff is uncontrollably > streaming out of his or her mouth. > > It takes a lot of restraint and discipline to be relatively civil in > criticizing this sort of thing. The unspoken voice of my inner demons makes > the Furies look like fairies. You don't want to know what I really think of > these people personally and it's not really not relevant anyway. But the > arguments, debates, critiques - words in a row - that's all we get in a > email-based discussion group. That's all that there can be. To rule that > out is just stupid beyond belief. Think about it. That is a totally idiotic > idea, maybe even the stupidest objection I ever heard. > > > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
