Jon Lynch,
I'm sorry to see that no-one has replied to you earlier to welcome you to
Moq.org - they are all muct to busy inspecting the seats of their pants for
signs of an ontology of gravity. Something of a wild goose chase, but it
keeps them ammused - and also, unfortunately, keeps them from noticing
yourself. Most Rude.
Perhaps you need a handle - not being the first 'Jon'. "Wild goose"?
Anyway, a couple of points WG,
> From: Jon Lynch <jonlynch_13@hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:16:29 -0000
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: MD General criticism of MOQ [2nd attempt]
>
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> I have a few broad criticisms to make of the basic tenets of the philosophy or
> pseudo-religion of Quality. I'd be interested to know if these points have
> been considered before.
> First, my basic relationship to this philosophy and its two main texts. On
> first reading I thought ZMM was the greatest book I had ever read, and more or
> less a religious experience. It single-handedly inspired me to first take up
> the study of philosophy. I have to say that in the light of my subsequent
> reading in the subject I have had to modify my initial judgement of its worth,
> although as a novel I still rate it very highly. I can't extend my enthusiasm
> to Lila, which, although often interesting, and containing many valid
> insights, for me was unconvincing in its application of the principles of the
> first book.
ELEPHANT:
I share the feeling that the attempt to "apply" the MOQ is always going to
be a bit less effective than the MOQ itself, and that for the simple reason
that MOQ cannot be identified with any application of it. I remain
enthusiastic for Lila, myself, because I note all the careful reminders that
this applications business is a funny old game, and only a game at that.
Chess come up alot. I suppose the point is that Pirsig is trying to prove
that he can play their game: I mean we can't let the logical positivists
hold the feild unapposed can we - we have to show that their application of
an ontology to a description of everyday life isn't the only one available.
In that, I'd say, Pirsig succeeds.
WG:
> I want to state my criticisms of the philosophy as it is set forth in the
> first book to begin with. In the first place, the narrative it sets up of the
> history of philosophy, where there is an ideal relationship to immediate
> Quality in prehistory, adulterated by Platonic and subsequently Aristotelian
> objectification of Quality within a subject-object metaphysical framework,
> leading gradually to a total alienation of 'Western' man from the universe,
> until the sixties counterculture restores the lost 'Romantic Quality' to the
> mainstream, and 'Phaedrus', following a course that "had never been taken
> before in the history of Western thought" uses this repressed Quality to
> reconcile man and the universe. I think this account overlooks the important
> fact that the universe has often been seen as either coextensive with God, or
> the expression of the mind of God, within the West. I would say that it is not
> until the secularised and formalised metaphysics of Descartes (with Harold
> Bloom's "dumbfoundering abyss between the subject and the object" opening up
> for the first time), that the subject-object mentality that Pirisg unvaryingly
> opposes makes its first genuine appearance.
ELEPHANT:
A well read man WG - you will also have read Bloom's 'The closing of the
American Mind?' I take Bloom to be making points in that book that are very
similar to those in Lila, differently expressed of course.
WG:
> And further to this I would add
> that almost from the moment Descartes opened up this abyss, Western philosophy
> has tried to close it again, through a number of systems which bear a close
> relationship to Pirsig's MOQ, and which, if fairly examined, are at least as
> convincing.
ELEPHANT:
This is just to say that Pirsig is part of a Tradition - that much is true
and I don't think RMP would deny it.... but he's not part of a Popular
tradition as yet: in that regard he is unique. I don't think the fact's you
cite about Zen monks etc support your conclusion:
WG:
[SNIP]
> In short, it seems to me that the theoretical edifice Pirsig builds to support
> Quality is basically unsound. Whilst he has had many valid insights, it seems
> to me that the most productive and influential thing to do with them might be
> to try and re-interpret the traditional history of Western philosophy in their
> light, particularly since the parallels between his work and the early
> idealists are so strong. This kind of approach could potentially return
> Quality to the mainstream of Western philosophy rather than sidelining it as a
> new age cult.
ELEPHANT:
.... But I heartily agree that Quality belongs in the mainstream, along with
the Form of the Good. Have you read any Weil, Murdoch? Do so.
all the best and apologies if you'd like to rename yourself differently,
Elephant
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 - 16:01:10 BST