Ant, > > Ant McWatt comments on Dr McWatt's comment: > > So what did I find of help in understanding the MOQ? > > Well, primarily the writings of Paul Turner (mostly found at his papers at > robertpirsig.org) and David Buchanan (mostly found here in the archives > of MMOQ Discuss!) > > Paul was the person who really nailed down the MOQ down for me. He made > the implicit assumptions that Pirsig used in ZMM and LILA explict. Paul > takes you "behind the curtain" to reveal the heart of the MOQ which is... > > ...the East Asian Tetralemma: > > http://robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm > > > I highly doubt that this form of logic was encountered by many Western > philosophers before the 20th century so, IMHO, I think people are wasting > their time looking at any Western philosophers before this era if their aim > is to understand the MOQ. >
Whew! There's a lot to comment upon there but first the most glaring point to me is that part of Pirsig's great genius is that he alone, of the world's pantheon of modern philosophers, is his own interpreter. Most philosophers speak in an esoteric language that's technically correct but hard for normal people to understand. Robert Pirsig spoke in concrete terms drawn from direct experience and this made his deep philosophical ideas accessible to any true seeker. But there has been a lot of dissent in the community of interpretation that Pirsig's writings has generated. How to explain that? And finally, by "the MOQ" do you mean an officially recognized body of interpreters? Or do you mean just in your humble opinion exactly what the author meant by his Quality? My aim these days is not to understand the MOQ any better than I do, but to interpret the MOQ to the world matrix in which it exists. And for that, learning how to teach a new logical system seems a cumbersome step in my task. I'm sure it works with some people, but if you want to create a tiny self-contained cult of esoteric understanding, go ahead. It's not my bag so good luck. But if you want to interpret Pirsig to a larger community beyond your little group there, it pays to make friends. To find philosophical congruences and harmonies with other great thinkers. Perennial means to me, ideas that keep recurring because they're good. Josiah Royce, in his Problem of Christianity said that all dualism falls apart without a third - he called his "interpretation" but the idea that SOM is invalid is not Pirsig's alone - not in essence. The real question is, why is it perennially ignored and rejected? What does that say about a world that chooses self-power over Quality? Over and over again. Those are the questions which haunt me. Not what the MOQ is, but what it isn't... Popular. Accepted. Integrated into society. > http://robertpirsig.org/Doorly.htm > > > Dave Buchanan was the first person I encountered who had really understood > what Pirsig was trying to say. And the bonus with Dave, of course, is that > he's a bloody good comedian as well... William James crossed with Bill > Hicks if you like! > J: I would like, but dave doesn't share his good qualities with the likes o' me. Ant: > > Otherwise, regarding understanding Pirsig's work, it has not been > philosophers but rather narratives (whether in the form of books or films) > such as "Rashomon" (which was a favourite Japanese film of Pirsig's > directed by Akira > Kurosawa) that I have found helpful. > > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042876/ > > > J: If not helpful... at least salubratory. Absolut-ly Yours, John 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
