Davor and Debaters
You wrote:
> Sam you wrote; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:08:47 -0000
> Now then. I have a question for you, and for anyone else who might be
> interested in trying to tie down a specific answer to a concrete
> question. Do you believe that Pirsig is in fact an Idealist, in the
> 'mainstream Western philosophy' sense, that would include Berkeley,
> Kant and Hegel in its different variants?
> This is quite interesting Sam, What kind of idealism are you talking
> about? it's probably my lack of knowledge about these three
> philosophers(I have read Prolegomena, and Hegel's speculative
> philosophy as a deliverance from modern subjectivity by Henk
> Stockmans). I will try to summarize the views of Hegel, Kant, Berkeley
> and one of my early journey heroes..........Fichte, It's not easy
> summarize the viewpoints in a post less than 2000 K but I'll have a
> go;
LILA opens with Pirsig distancing himself from both materialism
and idealism (even from the loftiest idealist variant called
"mysticism") and these becomes his antagonist SOM, and if SOM
is proved untenable the MoQ is invalid too.
> Hegel his subjectivity
Nice formulation - very Norwegian sounding :-).
> I know that Hegel first rejected rejected Kant his philosophy, ''this
> point of view has no truth'' Hegel writes in his Enzyklopädie, and
> further; ''Diese moderne verzweiflung an der erkennbarkeit der
> Wahrheit ist aller spekulativen Philosophie wie aller echten
> Religiosität fremd''. Truth is absolute he says. Later on he changes
> his mind about this and tends to have a way more subjective approach,
> I mention this shift for a better understanding of the way Hegels
> thoughts evolved(important for those who want dig further in Hegels
> works, there is more unity in his early and late work, though even
> hegel self didn't want to believe that and with him many
> interpretors).
Impressive all this as is Sam's postulate about a Hegelian,
Berkelian and Kantian kind of idealism, but need we act as if
Pirsig's own statements don't count and he unknowingly is an
idealist ?
OK, I found Struan's quotation from the Routledge Encyclopaedia :
> > ....................................................... 'a philosophy which
> > takes mind as in some sense creating the physical world even if it
> > postulates some further more basic reality behind the mental and
> > physical.'
interesting because "behind mental" must mean "beyond mind" in
a mind/matter sense, and that must truly be "an older, broader
sense". And if that means before SOM (as presented in ZAMM) I
agree with Struan. Pirsig after all says that the Q idea is the oldest
idea there is.
> Kant his subjectivity
> I only read Prolegomena so I'm not going to claim a thorough
> understanding of Kant(it's like chewing leather), nor am I going to
> discuss much aspects of Kant his philosophy, I'll try to give a brief
> summary of what Kant thought about metaphysics which was the most
> important issue in the Critique of pure reason
Remember P of ZAMM's discourse about Kant? He is most
respectful, but after all one senses (already in that book, more so
in LILA) that Kant is not HIS man: None really are. I don't have
ZAMM here and won't comment it before having refreshed myself.
One thing came to me though. Anyone know the Danish seer
Martinius? He professed to have solved all the problems of
existence and his main spokesman tried to how M. had reconciled
the S/O, but soon got into two kinds of subjectivity. No it isn't easy
without Pirsig's radical solution.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:43 BST