Re: MD Pirsig a nominalist?

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 17:57:55 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD MOQ and Logic/Science"

    Scott

    Well only Pirsig could tell us. But remember
    that rhetoric and persuasion have their merits
    and you have to know your audience & times.
    I wonder what Anthony thinks about this one?

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 4:46 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Pirsig a nominalist?

    > David M,
    >
    > > Scott [prev]: Even if one wants to keep to a temporal story, which in a
    > way we have
    > > to,
    > > since we cannot imagine eternity, it is possible to speak of intellect
    > > before there were people, and without positing an anthropomorphic
    Designer
    > > God. On the biological level, instinct acts as a conceptual realm by
    which
    > > the animal can react to particulars. An animal may have never
    encountered
    > > some other animal before, but instinct -- a set of generalized
    patterns --
    > > will get it to flee or chase. And on the inorganic level, physical law
    is
    > a
    > > conceptual reality that the physical things will always follow (though
    who
    > > is to say that physical laws haven't changed over the eons).
    > >
    > >
    > > DM: This is 100% right as far as I am concerned. I think Pirsig
    > > leaves intellect on the 4th level with man as so many people
    > > understand intellect only in human terms. Pirsig instead simply
    > > explains how SQ/DQ manifests differently on different levels due
    > > to what emerges as now being possible as the levels are built on top
    > > of each other. SQ itself implies universality. You see concepts as
    > > essential to universality as Hegel rightly does and therefore say
    > intellect
    > > where
    > > Hegel says reason. Pirsig tries to keep off of these to avoid attack of
    > > anthropocentrism. But to me the emergence of SQ/DQ is clearly
    > > full of what cunning to borrow a word from Hegel. I take this to
    > > be a quality of DQ that emerges on all levels. Even the abraxas moth has
    a
    > > yearning love of its dream image of the universal light, or of the
    > > ideal-lady
    > > moth.
    >
    > [Scott:] I am not sure you are right about Pirsig. If you are, then I
    would
    > say he is being intellectually dishonest, that he is pulling his punches
    to
    > keep some respectability. What I think is more likely is that his
    > conception of Buddhism is somewhat misguided, and that leads him to
    > denigrate the intellect, to see it as something to be surpassed, and not
    to
    > see it as something to be worked on and purified.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 : Sun Sep 05 2004 - 18:27:20 BST