David, you asked:
>I wondered about your impressions of Wilber's BRIEF HISTORY.
Me too. The problem is, I was enjoying it greatly also, until I got crushed
under the accumulated load of "philosophology" the university is asking of
me to produce. Seeing as it's my money, I figured I should correct my focal
priorities. However, I agree with you that "Wilber rocks!" and he and Pirsig
are like 'peas in a pod'. I personally have found Pirsig's altogether
superior, yet baffling on certain points without KW's insights. Now, this
will all have to wait a bit. In the meantime:
I sympathize with Roger's mention of being tired of rehashing what we
already (think) we know about Pirsig's philosophy. Fun as it is, I am sad to
say that not yet has one person (to my knowledge - if so then PLEASE put it
one the website) attempted to:
COMPLETELY
&
CLEARLY
outline, or explain Pirsig's philosophy, NOT as they personally would like
it to be, or think it 'should' be, but AS they believe Pirsig himself meant
it to be. The obvious query is: why don't you do it, and stop bitching?
Well, I'm trying.
Now, I'm as big a fan of romantic quality as any of you, and am
(demonstrably) fully capable of being irrational, unclear and just plain
silly. Well, that's all good and necessary (for myself), however, as I read
my past posts, more than half don't even make all that much sense to me.
Okay. How can I redeem myself?
Philosophy has been given in many guises - dialogues, formal treatises,
novels, etc... That's great, and so are Pirsig's presentations of his ideas.
However - if the MOQ ever wants to gain the credit needed for serious
scrutiny (and perhaps even respect!) from academia, then it must, really
now, it MUST be unpacked, taken out of the Dynamic setting (novels) and put
into Static patterns of intellectual value - Complete and Clear non-rambling
essays.
Anyone agree?
Look - about Wilber, James, Nishida (it's on the list, Rog, I'm getting to
it soon) Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and every other philosopher whose
ideas either help explain P's, or provide solid argumentation against P's.
The only way that we will be able to clearly, intelligently COMPARE &
CONTRAST other philosophers with the MOQ is if... well I guess we really
ought to have a CLEAR & COMPLETE conception of it in our heads, and out here
in the open on the website, eh?
So - you wanna write poems - great. I like'em too. But let's not neglect the
fact that classic quality has it's own aesthetics, too.
What I propose, then, is that each interested party take one section or the
whole shaboodle, and EXPOUND it RATIONALLY, logically, for all to read and
(CONSTRUCTIVELY) criticize. To point some fingers and directly ask you, beg
you, challenge you, spank and tickle you until you give in: David, Roger,
Diana, Horse, Bodvar, Struan, Glove (still out there?), and all others whose
thought I am not so aquainted with: you all have a 'good' grasp of the MOQ.
Let's each separate what we think are Pirsig's opinions from our own. Only
when we have, in point-by point fashion, a few different "interpretation"
(should attempt at a literal translation, really) of P's ideas, can we
rationally GET ANYWHERE - apply it. Pragmatically, of course.
Hmmm.
I'll start:
------
Axiom 1:
Quality is undefinable.
1: supporting evidence of axiom
ii: best arguments against the axiom
iii: personal opinions
iv: whatever, you get the point
Axiom 2:
Quality is experience.
A 3:
Quality is morality.
You see. Headers, and numbers and all that shit - they really do have
rhetorical value.
Gone on too long. See ya!
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
