Andre said to David and Arlo:
I thank Arlo as well for finding this piece on ZMM and Lila but wonder if both
Arlo’s and dmb's enthusiasm last as they actually read the way von Dahlem
treats both ZMM and Lila?
I haven’t read the hundred odd pages von Dahlem has devoted to ZMM and the MoQ
in their entirety (am at page 229) but, reading what she has to say from the
perspective of this "communicative foundationalist ethics” which she thinks is
perhaps the latest saviour but I sincerely wonder if she understands the MoQ
or its implications as I sense that it is beyond this narrow, advocated
perspective. All I read is an attack on the intellectual level (which Phaedrus
represents) as developed in Pirsig’s MoQ. There appears to be a great
psychological/interpersonal thing going on from the S/O perspective and there
appears to be little by way of interpersonal relationship understanding from
the MoQ perspective.
Am interested to hear your comments/thoughts. Perhaps I completely
misunderstand.
dmb says:
You're probably right, Andre. I starting reading on page 140 and it only took
about two pages to see that the author misconstrues some very basic points. For
example, about the classic-romantic split she says, "What Pirsig’s narrator
suggests in Zen is the categorical disjunction of these modes of understanding
reality in the everyday world." That is the opposite of Pirsig's point, the
misconception he's trying to overcome, the very disjunction that we do NOT find
in the artful mechanic.
In that respect, apparently, she is way off the mark right from the start.
But it's still pretty cool that Pirsig's work increasingly appears in academic
literature. Nothing will advance the MOQ like a good debate in that arena.
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
