dear 3wd and others:
i wrote that essay of mine you quoted
in response to a Lila Squad challenge
to explain the MoQ in 30 minutes -
it attempted to provide some philosophical background,
as well as clarity and simplicity;
it did not attempt advocacy -
i was clearly re-stating someone else's philosophy
not creating my own -
however, you correctly point out that at that time
i misintrepreted post-modernity;
i owe that to satre,
other's misreadings of foucault,
and my own truncated reading (at that time)
of nietzsche;
as well as the fact that 30 minutes
only left room for trite, too-clear-cut dictonomies -
i now understand that post-modernity
transcends subject-object metaphysics -
you write:
"The Bolsheviks revolutionized by respecting the Czarist traditions."
quite the opposite actually ...
the Bolsheviks' utopianism concealed
the domination of Czarist tradition,
i dare you to find any Bolshevik at that time
who avowedly 'respected' Czarism,
and yet because they lacked historical discipline,
they arrogantly think of their revolution as beyond histroy
that's what let their aping of previous totalitarian ways
go tragically uncriticized
you wirte:
"The Chinese "Cultural Revolution," first and foremost,
respected Chinese cultural and intellectual traditions."
really? is that why 20 million had to be slaughtered?
this is a blatant example of brutal oppression,
no re-spect there
"The French and American revolutions showed great respect
for the tradition of the "Divine Rights of Kings."
by chopping off the king's head?
again reification does not equal re-sprect
"In fact I'll wager that history will judge Pirsig's two 'novels'
as some of the greatest postmodernist literature ever."
i don't think so,
except for his diary of madness and this passage:
'[Creating a metaphysics is] like trying to construct
a perfect unassailable chess game.
No matter how smart you are
you're never going to play a game that is 'right'
for all people at all times everywhere.
Answers to ten questions led to a hundred more[.]"
(lila, p457.)
as lyotard defines post-modernity,
incredulity towards all meta-narratives,
pirsig certaintly does not fit the bill
pirsig correctly places himself within american pragmatism
and despite what many say
i can't see rorty-types as post-modern
perhaps they're recovering or self-hating moderns,
or just born three hundred years too late :)
but post-modern?
and i didn't call pirsig "an ignorant liar or plagarist"
i said he's either ignorant or a plagarist
or just an intellectual novelist
instead of a philosopher
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:04 BST