Diana, David B. and all MOQ Focus
I have been rummaging through my limited collection of English
adjectives to find a superlative I haven't used before to praise
Diana's post, but just come up with good old ....GOOD!
Oh, I needed it. Of late there has been attacks on Pirsig from "you
know who", totally irrelevant regarding the MOQ. Quasi-
psychological analysis of P. projecting his social short-comings
into a metaphysics...etc. Frustrating onto nausea, because such
stuff is impossible to reply to unless accepting the somish
premises and hindered by the rules to go back into the SOM/MOQ
basics at each turn.
But enter Diana's message probing exactly that point. Phew! It
made up for all (my) misery. I have a tendency to fear that some
may be "seduced" by learned-sounding persons who have no
interest of discussing the MOQ other than using it for showing how
many irrelevant objections they can produce before breakfast. And
the old members seemingly falling silent as if admitting defeat.
Only good old David B. fencing like a silent movie actor up a
staircase. :)
But forgive me, I needn't worry. The Quality idea is understood ....
better than by myself!! I must admit that I had doubted if the
Subject-Object Metaphysics was acknowledged by any
philosophical work, and am greatly relieved by Diana's research
into the matter. It's just called a "dichotomy" in the said Cambridge
Dictionary, but we all know what that means.
I also think that Diana has it just right regarding Galen Strawson's
reason for saying that SOM is a position held by no-one. Every
reasonably informed person knows by now that the subject/object -
or its best known alias - the mind/matter division is untenable, yet
(again so well formulated by Diana)....."so fundamental that even
so-called mystics who shouldn't believe it seem affected by it
anyway". Before Pirsig there was no alternative. SOM is ...Diana
again...the last BEST STATIC METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATION
(should we dare to say "was"?)
The rest of that paragraph is just as significant:
> The idea of reincarnation as it's understood
> in the West for example is pure subject-object metaphysics. The little
> ghost that is your true Self leaves your body when you die and goes to
> live in a new baby. Actually that isn't what Buddhism says at all, but
> that's the way it's been understood in the West because people have
> tried to pin new ideas onto an old, flawed metaphysics.
Approved over and over again!
Finally the last gem.
> *Who completely denies the existence of Quality?*
> I've left this till last because it's the most important point. Many
> people may know the SOM is flawed, but few Western philosophers
> believe in Quality and our mythos certainly denies its existence. And
> Quality, not the SOM, is the main subject of the book. LILA wasn't
> written primarily to argue against the SOM, it was written to argue IN
> FAVOUR of the MOQ. Pirsig isn't just trying to diss the SOM, he's
> trying to offer something better.
Exactly!
********************************************************************
David Buchanan's post was just as good in it's own right, and after
these two we may say that the case is closed and the court will
meet again at the end of the month, but ....no there is much more
to be said so go on posting.
Thanks Diana and David, you made my day.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
