From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 21:38:03 GMT
Dearest David B.,
You really managed to make me smile with your 8 Dec 2002 17:15:32 -0700
posting.
When I wrote 'no criticism is valid and valid criticism of existing systems
of ideas precludes creating new ones and maybe even improving existing
ones',
if 'full comprehension must preceed any valid criticism',
I (logically) presumed that FULL comprehension is impossible and should not
be required to be allowed to criticize anything.
To FULLY comprehend a text requires sharing ALL static patterns of value of
its author.
And yes, I too was raised decently: to speak with two words, to treat
everyone respectfully, to not criticize if I don't know what I am talking
about. As a result I too conform to social patterns of value, usually.
Intellectual patterns of value require critical discussion. Invalid
criticism if need be. If the discussion dies, the intellectual pattern of
value dies. It can't wait for social patterns of value to have their way.
It's a balance of course. Unrespectful discussion that kills the social
patterns of value also kill the intellectual patterns of value that flourish
on their foundations.
I was only nitpicking on your too rigid formulation: 'FULL comprehension
MUST preceed ANY valid criticism'. I just wanted to share my hunch that even
unvalid criticism can help discussions farther (if people are not too easily
offendee), hoping for an exchange like this.
You wrote:
'to describe my approach as philosophology is so much of a stretch that I'm
stunned. I really can't imagine how you arrived at such a thought.'
'Lila' chapter 26:
'Philosophology is to philosophy as musicology is to music, or as art
history and art appreciation are to art, or as literary criticism is to
creative writing. It's a derivative, secondary field, a sometimes parasitic
growth that likes to think it controls its host by analyzing and
intellectualizing its host's behavior.'
If Pirsig's MoQ is philosophy, discussing his MoQ is philosophology. Period.
No specific criticism of YOUR approach intended. Rather some
self-relativation. ('We' in 'Is that what we should be doing here on this
list, philosophology...?' refers to a collective 'self', not in a
condescending way to 'you'.)
The implicit way out I suggest -in line with the suggestion to allow invalid
criticism if it helps the discussion forward- is to discuss OUR MoQ's on
this list.
I wrote:
'To the extent that ZAMM is autobiographical, Pirsig is certainly entitled
to say this, at least with regard to lunacy. The whole MoQ no more than the
private static pattern of a lunatic ...?! Maybe we are taking him too
seriously? (-:'
You reacted:
'So the MOQ is the incomprehensible ravings of a lunatic? I take it to mean
you're not a fan.'
PIRSIG's MoQ isn't FULLY comprehensible, that's right. (So let's try to
create our own versions.)
Being a fan of mystical religion, having strong indications that ZAMM is
largely autobiographical and reading Pirsig's near-identification of
mystical religion and lunacy, I don't think Pirsig can really be offended.
('Lila' chapter 30: 'The Metaphysics of Quality identifies religious
mysticism with Dynamic Quality. It says the subject-object people are almost
right when they identify religious mysticism with insanity. The two are
almost the same.')
I'm also very much a fan of 'Lila', especially of (chapter 26):
'Phaedrus ... thought the best way to examine the contents of various
philosopbological carts is first to figure out what you believe and then to
see what great philosophers agree with you. There will always be a few
somewhere. These will be much more interesting to read since you can cheer
what they say and boo their enemies, and when you see how their enemies
attack them you can kibitz a little and take a real interest in whether they
were right or wrong.'
It is 'with this technique' that I 'approach' Pirsig's MoQ.
Are you sure I 'must fully comprehend' Pirsig's MoQ before I can be allowed
to criticize it or create my own version?
I wrote:
'Like you David, I don't exactly see how the anecdote about Aquinas stopping
"his writing and his liturgical endeavours" after getting an insight during
the Eucharist supports the value of such writing and such rituals...'
Maybe my irony was lost on you or my ability to express it in what's not my
mother tongue failed, but I happened to express assent, dearest David. Your
long rave about chocolate pudding (which I happen to dislike) was quite
unnessary to make me agree that the anecdote about Aquinas does NOT support
such writing and liturgical endeavours. For me too 'mysticism is far more
valuable than ritualistic religion' (but -unlike you- I consider mystical
religion that needs entheogenic substances a degenerate branch).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 22:03:07 GMT