Also worth pointing out folks - if this weren't already my 5th mail of the day (ludicrous rule) - that had Paul already covered much of this previously in his well loved Notes on the Tetralemma. (Also recently updated on Ant's site.) http://robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm
Ian On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > In Paul's paper he says: > > "... the unpatterned-patterned, Dynamic-static distinction itself, by > highlighting the limited scope of patterns of thought, should be seen > as a device to PREVENT the notion of an ultimate structure of reality > itself rather than to propose a new one. With everything subordinated > to unpatterned value, we find that “reality itself” is just the name > given to the most valuable explanations and assumptions held by a > given CULTURE." > > And later after "translating" Pirsig's statements in Lila Ch8 with the > first and second context concepts ... > > "Related to this is the debate about whether static patterns are > “real” or “merely conceptual.” Again, BOTH positions are supported by > one of the two contexts so a “final answer” cannot be given. Rather, > one must select the context which is of MOST VALUE FOR THE CURRENT > PURPOSE." > > And later: > > "the term “pre-intellectual,” which is mostly used within context (1), > as exemplified in the statement above, could be modified to > “pre-static” (i.e. the experience of value prior to its > contextualisation into any static patterns) when used within context > (2) so as not to erroneously relate Dynamic Quality SOLELY to the > intellectual level of evolution. > > My emphases. > > I agree with everything Paul says. > > The error is those (correctly) aiming to devise an interpretation of > the MoQ in academic-philosophy-space (as needs must) - must not > presume that quality defined intellectually in this context (culture > of academic dialectical argument) represents the sole (or whole) > definition of intellectual quality - because this is a too-static > definition of intellect for the world as a whole. > > I have many times expressed my support for those who tenaciously stick > to their closed logical objective dialectic, when their aim is to > further MoQ in philosophical academe. But I strenuously reject the > idea that this limitation applies to discourse (and practical and > rhetorical use) of MoQ in the wider world, and therefore this limit > must NOT apply to MD itself. > > (Minor editorial comment - mis-spelling of Parmenidean (as > Parminedian) after the Lila Ch8 references.) > > And as Paul goes on to elaborate the alternative logics of Buddhism > complete the circle. It's not a question of those branded as "mystics" > being anti-intellectual, it's a matter of retaining both contexts for > a fuller description of the world and action within it beyond > philosophical academe. > > (It is supremely ironic and more than a little sad, that DMB turns out > to be the arch dialectician in arguing for MoQ in the professional > philosophic context - Pirsig's Bulldog I call him - when along with > Pirsig I was able to say "I love DMB" when he previously expressed his > imaginative take on the Orphic mythos and Campbell's Masks of God, > etc.) > > Regards > Ian > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Ian Glendinning > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ant said, >> >>> I have now published Paul Turner's new paper about this issue at >>> robertpirsig.org. Paul says: >>> >>> >>> 'I've updated my "Two Theses" post from 2005 and changed it to "Two >>> Contexts" which seems more appropriate. Looking at the MD lately I think a >>> lot of time is wasted by people arguing from one context against the other >>> so I hope this helps reduce that in some way.' >>> >>> Paul's paper can be found here: >>> >>> http://www.robertpirsig.org/Two%20Contexts%20of%20the%20MOQ.htm >>> >> Ian says. Good. That's what I mean by balance. If there are two >> perspectives, recognise both, and be respectful of the other's perspective, >> rather than argue one over the other. I will read what Paul has to say. >> >> Respect is the only rule. >> Ian 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
