Arlo, On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:31 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Arlo had said] > There are many "post-" philosophies out there. "Post-technological", > "post-consumerism", "post-industrial" (of course)... I've been reading some > articles lately on "post-postmodernism" (which has its own Wikipedia page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism). > > [John] > Incidentally, I didn't like the wiki article much. I preferred the SEP's > description of post-modern. > > [Arlo] > Just to clarify, what I was linking wasn't about "post-modernism" but > "POST-post-modernism". And, not making any claims, just pointing out the fun > with this way of labeling. > > [Arlo previously] > Overall, I think the use of "post-" to demonstrate an initial cleave with a > dominant ideology is an appropriate first-step, but its a definition by > negation; defining "this" as "not that". It provides a point of departure, > but not a point of destination. > > [Dan] > I was under the assumption that the prefix 'post' normally connotes 'after' > just as 'pre' designates 'before.' > > [Arlo] > Certainly it does, Dan. My only point was to say that defining something as > being "after" something else doesn't really define what something "is", just > what "it is no longer". I have no problem with these label, but I think a lot > of authors are starting to realize we need something more descriptive than > simply labeling everything "post-modern". > > Its the same thing with the label "post-intellectual", or maybe > "post-rationalist". As you point out, there are significant differences > between Kirby's ideas about post-modernism and post-postmodernism and the > MOQ, and yet I'd argue that Pirsig's MOQ is certainly NOT "modernist". Does > that make it post-modern? Post-postmodern? If so, what does that mean? What > does it share with these other theories? Is it fair to
Dan: What strikes me about 'post' anything is that it should be better than what comes before it, if indeed it supplants something. So to say 'post-intellectual' is to suppose it is better than rational thought, which seems far-fetched to me. Robert Warlov (a new member? I don't recall seeing the name here before) wrote how art could be seen as the next evolutionary step beyond intellect. Possible. >Arlo: > Consider this paragraph from Alfredi Ruiz. It certainly seems like Pirsig's > MOQ would be described as "post-rationalist". > > "According to Guidano, the most important problem which has been posed to > this epistemologic approach has been the radical change which has taken place > in the conception of the relation between observer and observed. In the > empirist approach the observer faces a reality, objective in itself, which > exists independently. The observer in this case is considered impartial and > objective. The observation of the observer corresponds to reality. Now, with > the changes produced in the notion of the relations between observer and > observed, the observer no longer stands as neutral. On the contrary, with his > observation he introduces an order in what he observes and what he observes > is much more dependent on his perceptual apparatus than on the structure > itself of something objective external to him. What is now happening is that > we are beginning to attain greater conscience that the reality in which we > live is codependent of our way of ordering and goes together with our > perception. Th e > world of regularities we live in is a world which is co-constructed by the > observer." (Ruiz, Theoretical Bases of the Post-Rationalist Approach. > http://www.inteco.cl/post-rac/ifundam.htm) > > I should note that this short article also calls for an ontological and an > epistomological approach to experience, in much the same way that Paul Turner > approached describing two approaches to Pirsig's MOQ. Consider too that Ruiz > writes, "The first dimension is immediate experience. Like what occurs in > other animals, the experience of living, of feeling alive, is something with > simply occurs to us, something we can not decide. The other dimension is > explanation." Sounds very Dynamic/static, doesn't it? Dan: In a way, yes. Still, and perhaps I read it wrongly, this article seems to have a built-in assumption that rationality is composed of an observer observing an observation. For example: "In a Post-Rationalist approach, according to Guidano, this problem must be formulated as the explanation of: "Who is the observer? How does he order his experience? How does he know? What is knowledge? And finally, What is human experience? " This is where the MOQ might help... rather than beginning with the observer, begin with experience. Bring the observer/observation under one umbrella of value and the problem vanishes. There is no observer, as such. There are four levels of value responding to Dynamic Quality. >Arlo: > But this seems different from the post-postmodernism Kirby describes. How > would Ruiz's "post-rational" compare to Wood's "post-intellectual" (I have no > idea)? Do either reflect, even partially, the MOQ's "spirirationality" (if > I'm remember the term Ant's friend used)? > > We are awash in a sea of "post-X"s, though, that's for sure. Thanks, Arlo... always a pleasure. 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
