Adrie, all, I always had the impression that Robert Pirsig is a beachcomber extraordinaire. I think Phaedrus was portrayed as a poor student. He read voraciously but also skimmed a great deal searching for relevant information and discarding that which didn't fit. I would also posit that what makes Pirsig's work accessible for many is the same thing that turns academia away from his writings: encasing his philosophy in the form of novels. I've read other philosophers and what a slog. John was good enough to send me a copy of Randy Auxier's book Time, Will, and Purpose: Living Ideas from the Philosophy of Josiah Royce and yes it was a bit of a snore. I am sure that sort of academic writing appeals to a certain reader but for me it is exceedingly difficult to stay interested. That isn't to say I don't appreciate the work that went into Randy's work. I do. I just don't see how it is accessible to a lot of readers in the way Pirsig is. I guess you could liken Randy's work to deep sea diving. Whitehead too. To me, it is much more enlightening to simply walk down a beach picking up pretty shells.
Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adrie Kintziger <parser...@gmail.com> wrote: > David , All; > > This is also something that keeps bugging me , David. > Adrie ,quoting Dmb > " As if Pirsig had kept his Whitehead reading a big secret and then passed > off Whitehead's thinking as his own thinking. But if Pirsig was trying to > hide a secret connection to Whitehead, why would he quote the man in both > of his books"?.. > ------------------------------------------------ > He (Pirsig) indeed was quoting Whitehead on a regular base.Obvious. > Lila was targeting an academic level of understanding.The level that > understands that there were previous philosphers. > The level were the use of Plato, Socrates,Kant, Russel is understood > to be inherently present as a priori-basic building brick of reality. > It was mandatory for Pirsig to beachcomb all the previous written material, > as there is no reason what so ever to re-invent the universe on a daily > base. > Did he use Whitehead to put some cherry's on the metaphisical pie?.. > If he did, they are more than cherry's....and they are laden with new > insights. > Did Metaphisical time keep evolving since Whitehead grew old?I really > do believe so,as did Pirsig and the rest of the establishment. > > Sometimes its obvious why the way Whitehead is quoted is seen as offensive > towards theistic people,in the quote you offered yesterday from Lila > were Pirsig (chapter 9)?i believe,quotes Whitehead and ditches the sjamanism > that coasted along in the same alinea, or should i write "was always > inherently present" in the presentations of Whitehead. > > It would be interesting i suppose to investgate why there was a 'god' and a > Whitehead 'god'(found on stanford ), and not all theists were very happy > with > this fact. > > It would be interesting to reexamine Dr Mc Watts considerations about > Whitehead. > > It should be not so difficult to find this asserted stolen concruence as > quite > normal in Philosophical enviroments and is regardes as normal. > John cannot be the first to mine the ore.Others came before him. > > But to conclude for now, i was reading some conversation and dialogue > between Russel and Frederik Copleston. Copleston quotes a proffesor on a > certain moment in time.He does that > to give an example about a water kettlle. > "One can boil the water and conclude that a lot of molecules will escape > from the kettle,but we cannot predict wich ones that will be." > > Nice > it made me think about metaphisical pigs,If pigs could fly, how high would > they go.? > > Probably i will have the Dutch version of religion in the making within > 2,weeks. > with comments and analisys from a local perfessor here.His own material. > > Adrie > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-11-05 15:58 GMT+01:00 david <dmbucha...@hotmail.com>: > >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of >> Adrie Kintziger <parser...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 12:48 PM >> To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org >> Subject: Wait, who's the fraudulent Ignoramous? >> >> >> >> John said to Adrie: >> >> "So you agree with Auxier that Pirsig derived his MoQ entirely from >> Whitehead? To tell you the truth, I don't mind at all, it's just a shock >> to find out after all these years." >> >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> John's approach is outrageously dishonest. It's slanderous bullshit from >> beginning to end. Not only is it a wild distortion to claim that you "agree >> with Auxier that Pirsig derived his MOQ entirely from Whitehead," it's >> simply not true that Auxier said anything like that. His claim was far more >> modest; there is zero chance that Pirsig didn't encounter Whitehead while >> he was in Chicago. >> >> >> But what makes these slanderous, fake debate even worse, is that it's >> really, really stupid. John would have us believe that Pirsig "is >> perpetrating one of the most elaborate frauds ever known" if he ever had >> actually read Whitehead. As if Pirsig had kept his Whitehead reading a big >> secret and then passed off Whitehead's thinking as his own thinking. But if >> Pirsig was trying to hide a secret connection to Whitehead, why would he >> quote the man in both of his books? >> >> >> If John were an honest person, he'd admit defeat when this simple evidence >> is presented and if were a moral person he'd apologize for making such ugly >> and baseless accusations. Let's ask Randy Auxier if there is a zero percent >> chance of that. >> >> >> Who wants to talk with a person who admits no such thing and apologizes >> for nothing - but instead doubles down in this bullshit? Not me. >> >> >> Disgusting. >> >> >> >> Randall Auxier wrote to John: >> >> Zero. Chicago wasn't analytical at that time, and McKeon despised >> analytical philosophy. That day and age at U Chicago was 100% process >> philosophy, both in the Phil. dept and in every committee, including the >> Divinity School. The list of process-professors is endless. Zero. >> >> >> >> John wrote to Auxier: >> >> There are some pertinent biographical facts you're ignoring, Randy. You're >> thinking "he'd have to be crazy to be in Chicago and not have heard of >> Whitehead" What you're forgetting is that he was crazy, and got so crazy >> he had to be locked up and given electroshock therapy where he had to >> reconstruct his earlier work by looking at notes he'd kept. I offer a >> few pertinent comments from Pirsig, to illustrate my point that he wasn't >> much of a philosophy student. So Professor, are you still sure there is a >> ZERO chance that Pirsig didn't understand or read Whitehead? If he did, >> then he's perpetrating one of the most elaborate frauds I've ever known. >> >> >> >> Auxier's reply: >> >> Zero. You don't understand what actually happens in graduate seminars in >> philosophy, such as McKeon's. I have spent a lifetime both doing this and >> listening to it. You don't understand how students talk on their way into >> and out of class, or what they discuss on the days between. The entire >> heady scene of graduate school, which Pirsig describes quite nicely in Zen, >> includes all kinds of things that won't show up in books and letters. I >> assure you, he knew and heard about and probably read Whitehead while at >> Chicago. If his memory was wiped out, that is hardly evidence against what >> I'm saying. It helps my case. He relieved these ideas from the recesses of >> a damaged cerebral cortex. Nothing unusual about that. >> >> <http://moq.org/md/archives.html> >> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> >> moq.org >> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and >> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current >> paradigms allow >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> parser >> 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 >> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> >> moq.org >> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and >> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current >> paradigms allow >> >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > parser > 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 -- 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
