On 21 Dec 2000, at 21:21, Struan Hellier wrote:
> Greetings,
Likewise Struan.
After your farewell ceremonial when it sounded as if you single-
handed had ousted LILA from the UK bookstores - and burned your
own copy as the final token I presumed - it was quite a surprise to
see you round these premises again. But welcome anyway - no
sarcasm - I have missed you. After having had to cope with people
who profess to say something moqish-related, but despite efforts
to fathom the connection drones on your criticism is balm. An
enemy like you is worth many such friends?
> I have just been reading the 'problems with the moq' on MF with
> interest, having found myself 'drinking white rum in a Portuguese bar'
> with an afternoon to fill. I blame Bob Dylan myself.
Dylan? For some reason my favourite is the song that starts with
"Hot chili pepper in the blistering sun...and continues with the hero
and his mistress Magdalena on the run from some calamity across
the border to Durango. Guess not the favourite among the
"feinschmeckers" .. sounds like some Salvation Army tune, yet ...
> There is a lot
> left out, but I thought I should focus upon my old favourite,
> especially in the light of Diana's view that denying SOM simply
> demonstrates ignorance. When one starts from the premise that a very
> highly regarded Oxford metaphysician, for example, is ignorant about
> his own subject, one simply exposes either one's own ignorance or at
> least one's simplistic grasp of the critique.
Oh yes, the MF. Diana's statement is correct enough, but strange
you didn't strike down on the "ethics" issue. It shows that you saw
its irrelevance - much to your credit.
> Question: "What is laughter?"
> Now, if Pirsig is correct, our whole being, upbringing and
> metaphysical understanding (whether we are aware of it or not) will
> inexorably lead us to say that it is either a subject, or an object,
> or unreal. Of course, I am not claiming that we would all use those
> words, but clearly these would be the underlying concepts.
> The most common answer in practice (try it) is that laughter is 'what
> people do when they find something funny' and a perfectly good answer
> that is as far as it goes. Now, press on with the questioning.
> Question: "Let us take your own laughter as it is what you know best.
> Is it an object?"
> Answer: "No, of course not."
> Question: "Then is it a subject?"
> Answer: "How can it be?" or "Now you are being silly" or simply a
> blank look at how stupid the question is.
> Question: "Is it real?"
> Answer: "Of course."
> Now if this SOM is so deeply ingrained in our 'mythos' as a set of
> 'ideas that we picked up at a very young age and never bothered to
> question and that are fundamental to practically everything we do,'
> (Diana) then our questionee could not possibly come up with an answer
> which clearly indicates that laughter is neither subject, nor object,
> nor unreal. In doing so he/she has, from Pirsig's point of view,
> rejected a truth so ingrained and self-evident that such a moment
> would be one of huge revelation and considerable confusion. That not
> one of my students even batted an eyelid at this conclusion speaks
> volumes about their own metaphysics! There are hundreds of other
> examples that I could have used and they all serve to show that this
> simplistic blanket accusation of SOM is so spectacularly and
> preposterously false that insisting upon it goes beyond ignorance into
> bloody-mindedness.
Nice try Struan, and you are welcome to heap on derogatory
adjectives, but you brought a rather bad example for your non-SOM
demonstration. "A subject" or "an object" is relevant what relates to
the S/O extremes (not differentiated according to you) - a stone or
an idea - but regarding Life and Society (non-existing according to
you) experience is divided into a subjective and an objective
aspect.
Laughter as expression is subjective while the facial contractions,
convulsions..etc are objective. I just can't see how these two sides
can be reconciled. We have heard unto exhaustion that subjective
and objective are [just] two sides to the same coin... etc. but what
good does that do when its wholeness never can be
EXPERIENCED? Doesn't that suggest some theoretical fault?
This is all - before the Christmas spirit overcomes me. Will write
something more when the holiday calms down.
See you
Bo
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
