Donny P. (I didn't realize there were 2)-
I'm glad you didn't offense to what I wrote in the MORAL MESS category. As
a matter of fact I often find your posts to be the most comprehensive of
anyone's. For example, I found your explaination of the differences
between finding ZAMM at the begining (like you did) and at at the end (like
Bo) of the metaphysical journey. I too found it at the begining (side by
side with J. Campbell).
As for the Philosophy professor who told me to get a degree from Harvard
before we talk... I'm currently pursuing a Rhet/Phil degree at Cornell. I
hope this guy is still employed at my former school when I graduate. I'd
love to take a crack at him now.
It's all good,
Rick
At 01:02 PM 11/18/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>DONNY TRYS TO REASURE THE L.S. THAT HE'S NEITHER AS HOSTILE NOR AS
>"BRAGGING"...
>
>...after saying a few words on Bo's behafe about SOTAQI, or SOLAQI, or
>whatever it is now. (Spicifically this is for Rick, Don R. and Finton.)
>
>********************************
>
> But before I go there, I'd also like to respond to Rick, because I
>think Bodvar hasn't yet and has "withdrawn from the field" for a while
>(actually I think he has a gallery show he's getting ready for).
>
>RICK asked Bodvar:
>When you say "Subject/Object Logic", is
>this just another way of refering to the perecption of reality through
>dualism and opposites? I.E. We split up Mind and matter (out there or in
>here), good and bad, up and down, light and dark, wrong and right, in and
>out, etc, etc, etc ---
>Or are you refering to Aristotealian style Logic?
>
>
> Rick, I think the answer is "Yes." Bodvar has objected to the term
>"Aristotilan logic" because he feels that's giving too much credit to one
>guy, for something which is, of course, a SOCIAL manifestation. This is
>the definition that ('least last we talked about it) Bodvar and I are
>leaning towards. (However I tend to emphisize as well the Enlightenment
>values of -- especially -- objectivity -- ie. freedom from personal/social
>gain, social stattus or social pressure -- because it's w/ this that
>Inttelect becomes a level of it's own and not just a tool in the hands of
>society, which Aristotilian logic was for it's first 1500 years.)
> HOWEVER, it should be noted that this is not exactly RMP's
>definition of "IntPoVs." In LILA, he clearly writes about the IntPoVs of
>non-western cultures (like Native Americans) and he describes "insanity"
>as abandoning your cultures IntPoVs and setting up your own, personal
>IntPoVs. Pirsig uses the metaphor of a person in a movie theater. I find
>all this solupsistic, Cartisan, ghost in the machine, psychological talk
>disturbing, misleading and un-usefull. I say, (and i THINK Bo is w/ me on
>this) individuals can't have IntPoVs; IntPoVs come out of a particuler
>type of social dialogue known as *prooving* -- As in: "Donny, stop
>bragging and prove it!" A truth that cannot circulate is like a monny
>that can't cirrculate; it has NO VALUE. So we are not going 100% w/ LILA
>on this. (See, even the Guardian of the MoQ is open to change if it seems
>reasonable. :) )
> And since Glove brought it up, I'll also add another difference
>between Bo and my picture of the Soc-Int levels: I tend to agree w/ Glove
>that the S-O split is primarily social. I think this ability to
>distinguish between person and non-person/mere thing is what gave rise to
>society out of BioPoVs. I've suggested this schema to help straighten
>things out:
>Bio = Object-consciousness (can distinguish between I and This, me and
>not-me) NOTE: not all organisms possess O-con.
>Soc = Subject-Object Consctiosness (distinguish between a person and a
>non-person or an impared/stigmatized person like an ex-con or mental
>patient, or Finton [just kidding])
>Int = S-O logic (this is a set of rules for how to analytically cut-up
>reality w/ your scalple and divide it into hierarchys [see ZMM])
> And, I'll also state for the record that (being the most
>multicultural person I know) I'm not yet totally comfertable resigning
>InTPoVs to the "Western European tradition as innherated from Greece."
>This seems rather problematical and Pirsig may be right about there being
>non-western Int-PoVs after all.
> As yet, SOLAQI still has it's pro's and its con's, and is open to
>improvement.
>
>
>RICK, in his responce to my last post says:
>As for the rest of the "Moral Mess" page, I agree with many of the points
>you make, but I can't help but detecting a good deal of hostility in
>there.
> For example, I'm not sure precisely what you and Bodvar were arguing
>about, but I don't see how bragging about your "superior" knowledge of Zen
>and Buddhism and Eastern religion can logically add to any argument.
>After
>all, it's a common rhetorical proof that the source of a message has
>nothing to do with its accuracy (see ZAMM for details). You don't need to
>know anything about the formal history of Zen or Philosophy to say
>intellegent and accurate things about Zen and Philosophy. Having all
>these
>great credentials doesn't mean what you say is more accurate. If this was
>the way arguments were decided why would any of us side with Robert Pirsig
>over someone like Oxford metaphysician Galen Strawson? I'm not trying to
>deride anyone I'm just saying ---why don't we just stick to logic and
>consistency here, and leave the diplomas on the wall.
>
>
>ME:
> Rick, don't fret about the hostility. Bodvar and I actually enjoy
>this. I can say, at least for my part, that we enjoy these debates so much
>because of this "edge" in the air between us. But Bo is a great guy, and
>I assure there is nothing personal going on here. (I think of him as the
>kindly Norwegion uncle I never had... or wanted. ;-) )
> I agree w/ you 100% that it does nothing to simply say, "Look I
>know more than you do about X so I get the final word!" That was not my
>intention. My intention is to try and draw Bo out to fight, because so
>far he hasn't done that. I have, in the past, probably before you joined
>the LS, Rick, posted at least two post that i can think of in which I gave
>the definition of "Idealism" as I use it, my sorces for precidents of
>using the word this way, and shown that is logically contradictory to say
>that the Moq is not an Idealism. "Idealism" primarily means the rejection
>of the S-O, "in-here"/"out-there" dichotomy. A (or the) major trait of
>Idealism is that the knowing subject and its known object are two facits
>of the same thing -- like two sides of one coin. Now Hegel (arguably the
>most famous Western Idealist) argued that most philosophers (Kant in
>particular) have succede in colapsing the object into the subject
>("showing that the O is the S's awareness of itself") but have failed to
>complete the other half of the movement by colapsing S into O ("The
>subject is the object's awareness of itself").
> For the most part Bodvar has not responded to this. What responce
>I have got has not come close to either (1) showing that my definition of
>"Idealism" is wrong (which would be a pretty neat trick since words mean
>nothing more than what we collectivly use them to mean, and i can give
>instances of use of "Idealism" in this manner) or (2) demonstrating that
>the MoQ is the -only- metaphysical system in world history which fits this
>definition (a mamoth philosological undertaking requiring a God-awful
>amout of reserch and at least 200 pages to acomplish) or (3) show that the
>MOQ does not fit my definition of idealism (which he won't do because that
>would mean that the MOQ does -not- recognize the singularity of S and O --
>and thus, by definition, the MOQ is a SOM).
> If you've missed all this in the past then I can se how my last
>post might seem like empty rhetoric w/ no logic behind it. But the truth
>is, for the most part Bo has ignored my protest and decided that, rather
>than answering me in a logical fashion, he will simply go on droping my
>name as someone who, being a self-profesed idealist, obviously has failed
>to grasp the basic meaning of the MOQ. (He has, in past posts, doubted
>that I've even read LILA much less understood it.) And now he drops my
>name to imply that I have misunderstood Buddhism and Eastern philosophy as
>well. Bodvar already knows I've studied this stuff, and I don't believe
>(most of the time) that he thinks I'm a complet idiot even when he implies
>it w/ his posts, but I couldn't let that go by w/o responding. Mostly, as
>I said, I'm just trying to draw him out (or at the very least get him to
>stop droping my name like that w/ nothing behind it), but there's not
>nearly as much hostility here as you might have thought, and I think Bo
>knows that too.
> Actually what this is all about is a VERY fundamental difference
>between Bo and I. My experience was this: I read ZMM and then LILA at the
>very start of my intellectual journey. I set out to study other
>philosophies and religions to see if I could find connections and
>simmilarities -- supporting ideas -- not the exact same ideas, but
>distinct similarities. I found many. Then I found many more. Much of the
>world's mythology and religion (IMHO) adds-up to various local or
>personal "takes" (or views) on the same elementery ideas and insights.
> Bodvar's experience was this: He discovered Pirsig much closer to
>the end of his intellectual carear and saw it as a refutation of
>everything he'd seen before that. So, for Bo, Pirsig is a totaly unique
>phenominon -- somthing w/o precident that just came out of the wilderness
>where no one had treaded before.
> Ultimatly, my view is right for me and Bo's view is right for him.
>We're the blind men arguing over what an elephant is (You know the
>story?), but we can't help it. Our experiences are soooooo different.
>
>
>DON R. writes:
>> This idea about God
>> controlling the flesh -- to, say, the Native Amaricans, that's talking
>> non-sense.
>>
>Non-sense to you, perhaps. I know many, and know of many more, reasonable
>people who think otherwise. The number of physicists who subscribe to a
>"religious" view of the cosmos is legion.
>
>
>ME:
> Don, I'm not sure where you got the impresion that I am somehow
>anti-religion!!?? Actually I've spent a great deal of time studying the
>myths, religions, and symbols of people all over the world. It's very much
>who I am, and it's entierly what my art is about: the relationship between
>spirituality and culture (the universal questions and insigts, and how
>they are clothed diferently by various peoples). Somehow you seem to be
>under the impresion that i think no reasonable person could be religious!?
>I can't figure out how you got that from my post, but I'm sorry for
>whatever misled you.
>
>
>DON goes on to say:
>I have no idea what specifically
>you're referring to vis a' vis Native Americans - all the various tribes I
>know of have some creation myth and some concept of a supreme deity.
>Different
>metaphor, that's all.
>
>
>ME:
> Yes, they do all have various creation myths. I've read a lot of
>them. So far as i know, nowhere in Native American mythology dose one
>find the idea of a Fall or Fallen Nature -- the world as a bad place, a
>place of exile from paradise where all we can do is wait and pray for the
>Kingdom Come. For the Native American mind (and, say, the Taoist) nature
>-is- pardise. There was no Fall, no exhile, and no redemption in Kingdom
>Come. In Gnostic Christianty, Jesus is recorded (by Thomas) as saying,
>"The Kingdom of Heaven will not come as if by expectation. Men will not
>say, 'it is here; it is here.' The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the
>earth NOW and men do not see it." (My emphisus on 'now') That's sheer
>Buddhism! But that's what's absent in "main-streem" Judism, Christianity
>and Islam. You can find it in Cabala (Jewish msticism). You can find it
>in Gnostacism and Suphi (Christaian and Islamic mysticism, respectivly),
>but you won't find it in Sunday school.
>
>
>Back to Don:
>> DT Suzuki, the great Zen scholar, was once speaking about the
>> diffrences between Eastern and Western "religion" and he stoped and
>said
>> of the West: "God vs Man. Man vs God. Man vs nature. Nature vs. man.
>God
>> vs nature. Nature vs. God. Very funny religion."
>>
>I've not read much of Suzuki. I suspect his contempt arises from his
>knowledge of popular Christianity, just as some of us who haven't delved
>into the religion may find Hinduism to be "funny". Different metaphors.
>
>
>ME:
> Yikes!! I don't think so, Don. I don't think Sazuki was
>contemptuous of anything. I think he made a humerous statement that was
>also an effective teaching tool. He highlighted a basic cultural
>difference w/ respect to religion.
> W/ the idea of 'lila' (put in MOQ terms): DQ becomes sq willingly.
>There is no Fall from grace. The a-temporal mystery enters the field of
>time in order to experience itself, because experience is always in terms
>of pairs of opposits (past and future, up and down, good and bad, me and
>you...). But sq isn't bad. It's great. The goal in Buddhism (and this is
>what Sazuki was getting at) is to put you at-one w/ the universe -- you
>identify w/ all things. But if nature/the world/the field of time (sq) is
>Fallen... then you do -not- identify w/ it. Nature is bad and you must be
>cleansed of it.
> Of these two views I think it's safe to say Pirsig is a supporter
>of 'lila' -- not the Fall. And that was my point. Nothing more.
>
>
>DON:
>Zen, philosophy, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, animism and a
>whole host of other "isms" are, ultimately, attempts to pin down reality.
>
>
>ME:
> YES!!!
>
>
>RICK wrote in a later post:
> This very man once said to me, "Once
>you have a degree from Harvard, then we can talk." I was naturally
>outraged.
>
>
>ME:
> As well you should be! That man is an idiot. It is very much my
>view that we should all feel free to think for ourselves and screw the
>"experts." It's even my opinion that the LS should use LILA as a
>*starting point* for discussion of our own ideas, we should not dedicate
>ourselves to explocation of the text or trying to find ways to "win
>converts" to Pirsig's sytem. I hope you never thought I was in the same
>catagory as "Professor Harvard!" Ouch! You wound me. I consider myself
>as fr from that as I can get.
>
>
> And for FINTON:
> No long message here, man. Just that I don't think you and I are
>as much against one-another as you may think. I enjoy your writtings very
>much! ("Kicking the s**t out of the English language ever since," was the
>funnyist thing I've seen hit the LS.) Don't read any contempt or derision
>here. I resorted to hyperboli for the purpose of showing how it comes
>across when you start talking about giving up reason, giving up freedom
>and worshiping society like it was God. (I know you hate Gates, and i'm
>reasonably certain you don't kill Catholics or Prodestants.) What i'm
>trying to get accross to you is this: You're writting CAN be very
>effective, but you need to get it under some control or else everyone will
>missunderstand and/or ignore. You've compared yourself to Joyce, but do
>you know how much re-writing he did on his books!? Draft after draft
>after draft. In truth, there are no good writers -- only good re-writers.
>W/ Joyce, EVERYTHING was in control (and yet the amount of DQ there!!
>The man was amazing!). I think if you learned more control and a bit more
>disciplin you could easily become our best writer and even (God help us
>all!) the LS's spokes-person. DQ does not mean pure unadulturated chaos
>and randum spewing. Just some advice from one artist to another because I
>care.
>
> TTFN
> Donny ("The Hostile") Palmgren
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST