All,
Struan wrote:
>For Pirsig the grave error of SOM is to try and, 'assign them (values) to
>subjects and objects.' If
>that is what SOM does then SOM is a strawman. The whole of the rest of Lila
>rests upon this invented
>fight with a mythical enemy for its support. Without this fight and the
>invented problems derived
>from it, the MOQ would be left with the 'ad hoc' hypothesis that Quality is
>the font of all things.
>This is, of course, a position which many have held over the last few
>thousand years and a worthy
>position it is too. Having said that, it is not scientific or backed up by
>any empirical evidence
>and had it not been for the battle between the MOQ and SOM very, very few
>people would have bought
>the book and this forum would probably not exist. It is a literary device
>and no more and it relies
>upon 'convoluted semantics' to establish itself with the suggestible.
I agree with much you have to say in this post, Struan. Lacking time, I only
want to suggest to you that, even if you are correct in your analysis of
Pirsig's "creation" of this supposed "S/O Metaphysics", that does nothing at
all to de-value the core ideas of his philosophy.
In fact, accepting the illusory nature of "Pirsig's straw-SOM" (as
experienced or as philosophized) is only a further help to elucidating his
brilliance. Why? Because, if you are correct, and your evaluation is better
than his, then you will have helped the cause of intellectual evolution. If
you have done so, Dynamically, then we have another empirical piece of
evidence for the existence of evolving Quality.
In brief, I will state that essential to the MOQ are at least these ideas:
Quality is undeniable yet undefinable, yet describable
Quality is the One and the many (poV's)
Quality is best divided into Dynamic Quality and spov's
Spov's evolve
Not just life (and intellectual decision making), but everything, is an
ethical process
All ethics can be built on the unit: "Dynamic Quality" (as, of course,
opposed to static patterns of value)
And not one of these central ideas are affected in the least by your
assertion that Pirsig is misguided in believing and expressing those
opinions which you deny to be true. (in relation to free will and the self,
here)
Whaddya think? (thinking = wanting = liking, as all four year olds know, but
feeling and sensing ALSO = wanting = liking = valuing)
David B:
Your query deserves my full attention and prolonged consideration.
I am working on it and will deliver when full.
And yes - grand, very Grand indeed.
Rich
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
