dmb to DT:
Sorry, but I am sick to death of watching hacks blame Pirsig for their
own confusion. The MOQ is definable and knowable and the whole thing is
built of words and concepts. Obviously, discussing his work (or anyone
else's) requires us to bring some linguistic tools and skills to task.
It also demands intellectual honesty so that people respond to the
actual claims of others without reversing, ignoring or distorting them.
Andre:
I share your frustration dmb and it seems to me that despite Pirsig's
MoQ some posters/lurkers are so trapped in SOM that they really,
absolutely cannot find their way through the words/concepts used. They
are still seen as a prison... as 'Marsha' does.
What I find amazing is that, because of this predicament i.e their
stuck-ness in what they are used to (living their whole lives in a SOM
understanding) is that it is impossible to understand, and use the
liberating effects of Pirsig;'s MoQ. It is literally not understood nor
grasped nor intuited. And the reason is perhaps that 'they' want to
define DQ. It seems an inability to go past words, an inability to face
the unknown, I do not know. It certainly is an inability to NOT see
words as pointers to... .
It is not to properly understand the meaning of 'it's all an analogy'.
The exact definition of words/concepts and ideas only point to a more
exact understanding/intuiting of the value referred to.
There has been such a persevering, obsessive need (that's the only way I
can describe it) to define DQ, that, it seems, a gap needs to be filled
by those that demand it ( and find Pirsig's MoQ inadequate!!). They want
the MoQ to fill that emptiness (which is not the Buddhist emptiness)
felt within, that is open and begging in such a way that anything
presented is rejected and discarded.
There MUST be more. Quite un-fulfilling. And I am aware of the
psychological angle put on this but cannot find another explanation. It
cannot be philosophical/metaphysical. It cannot be Pirsig's MoQ.
It seems that this is the core of Pirsig's argument: that there is a
genetic defect in our thinking, our way of rationalizing all there is.
The way we see, feel, hear, smell and taste. Nothing wrong with those of
course, but the way we are intellectually processing them... THERE is
the defect.
Perhaps we would do well to listen to these first BEFORE we
intellectualize about them. And, let there be no misunderstanding about
this: I really am convinced that Pirsig DID do just that before he wrote
things down. How else could he have come up with the IDEA that there was
something drastically wrong in and with our rationalizing.
It's like the story of filling in the concept of 'God' with
biological/social patterns of value. He listens, he writes, he answers,
he commands, he decrees etc, etc. And we prove again and again that we
have lost touch with our selves, again and again and again. Even on this
Discuss we demand answers and therefore repeat it.
Very sad indeed.
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
