Hi Thomas, Bodvar and Squad,
BODVAR
>I was
> a little shocked by Thomas T. Welborn's characterization of LILA as a
> harlot and panderer. Of course ZMM is matchless and I respect that he
> has a special relationship with it (so do I!), but I disagree
> strongly about LILA. They are completely different books.
There is some truth to what Thomas writes. I believe that the essence of
Pirsig's philosophy is in ZAMM (note the *A*), and LILA is a far from
perfect attempt to flesh it out. By writing the latter Pirsig made
himself vulnerable - picking apart Lila is as easy as shooting fish in a
barrel. Yet, the fact that I bother to participate here is because I
still believe that despite the obvious blemishes in the presentation,
Pirsig has still presented some very fine ideas and deserves serious
respect and consideration. I suspect that Thomas thinks likewise (right
Thomas?).
[snip]
BO>The
> MOQ is after all a metaphysics that discards the subject/object
> division. Using SOM against it is not valid.
No, No and again No.
Bodvar, for all your preaching against people who, in your opinion,
misunderstand the basic principals of the MoQ,
I am amazed that you can suggest that *discarding* the subject/object
division is part of it. Pirsig USES (rather than condemns) those terms
extensively is his presentation of the MoQ.
My way of putting it is that the MoQ recognises S/O for the invaluable
tool it is, then TRANSCENDS it by recognising its inherent limitations.
A similar relationship exists between Newton's laws of mechanics and
gravity and Einstein's relativity. Einstein recognised that Newton's
laws were correct, but only within certain limits. Similarly, the MoQ
may help us to recognise the limits of S/O-type thinking. If S/O is
regarded as an all encompassing metaphysics, then an argument which
follows the S/O framework consistently and meticulously must be accepted
as the truth. The MoQ allows us to recognise and admit the logic and yet
reject the truth of the argument. That provides the motivation for
finding a better truth.
BO>Using SOM against it is not valid.
I disagree again. Pirsig builds his MoQ using S/O tools because those
are the tools available despite their limitations. This is what makes it
a bootstrapping operation. But is also means that it is perfectly valid
to criticise the MoQ using S/O tools. (I believe that Struan should be
credited with saying the same thing several months ago). However, let's
not get confused between S/O validity and ultimate truth. That's the
lesson of ZAMM.
Comments anyone?
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST