From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 23:35:13 GMT
Let me hasten to add however that I have no idea whether or not my
current way of thinking is any more "right" than many of the
alternate views expressed here in the forum, including your own
mystical/philosophical inclinations. My way, for me, for now, seems
to provide me with satisfactory explanations of the world around me.
But that could change, and probably will.
As far as I'm concerned, no one can be "out of line" in their
thinking except, perhaps, when their thinking leads to action that
results in the misery of others. So, please, I welcome your
interaction here, and will read your posts with the attention and
respect they deserve. I'm sure every contributer to this list feels
the same way.
Hi msh,
Thanks for the encouraging words, and, yes, I have noticed the respectful
nature of the participants in this forum, which makes it more inviting than
others I have been a part of, but then again this is the nature of philosophy.
Right? It would also be the nature of philosophy to be able to make any
statements you see as true, or of quality, without looking over your should
er to see if you have backers. So when you say subject and object are where you find
your realities, then this should be accepted, and when you say this is how
Phaedrus/Pirsig saw and developed MoQ, then this should be accepted as well.
Even if you did not see this as how Pirsig saw it, then still it should be
accepted, and respected, as this is your honest spin on MoQ.
Let me clear up the idea of mystic philosopher though. I dont agree with
using divisions to clarify philosophy. The intellectual worth of Pirsigs
discoveries in these two books are well beyond the average imitative poetry
found in most books on philosophy, or pick a subject. The slicing and dicing of
the universe holds no value to me, unless value is added from the knowledge
gained from this slicing and dicing of the universe. I am not a mystical
philosopher, I am a Platonic Aristotelian, a Democratic Republican, a European
Indian, English African, Christian Buddhist You might say in Southern lingo,
I am a sooner. When I stated I am out of line, I meant in a linear philosophical nature in
which you would join in with others who shared the same beliefs. Metaphysics
itself is Aristotelian, so I would need to lean more toward Aristotelian
reasoning, which is, as I would have to agree, that Pirsig did in Lila (asbest
as I can remember). This would mean that I didnt allow myself thebenefits of
Platonic thought through a strictly defined MoQ.
This would mean that I would have to give up on The Good
The Good is unknowable in any fixed way, as it is always changing. I think someone has
mentioned this about science, evolution in particular, but the Good as well can
only be known in retrospect. Whether the Good, or the Truth, or both are
the pathways we take to find Quality, we cant possibly know that either of
them hold the key in the present, and as Shaw has said, If history is
constantly changing, how capable are we of learning from history?
If it is DQ we are seeking, and for DQ to take the place of static patterns of Quality, and we
can only know whether the DQ or static pattern will be true tomorrow, then
how can we know Quality in a scientific, religious or historical sense?
Heretoday, gone tomorrow.
I dont remember who the first philosopher was to say it, but Any
improvements in the world will come in small increments. In Pirsigs view
nothing but making quality decisions. DQ can only be placed on top of the heap
of static qualities carefully as not to upset the balance, as compilation of
static patterns is made up of yesterdays dynamic qualities; dynamic
patterns that possibly were only recognized as such in retrospect.
Whether or not we ever come to an agreement, does not really matter, as long
as we can discuss it with politeness as to avoid emotional cluttering of our
clarity of thought. As you so readily offered that your current thought may
be no more right, then this leaves the possibilities wide open, for me,
and even possibly yourself, to search for that unbiased truth in which the
theory changes when the data or reason doesnt support it, as opposed to the data
or reason being manipulated to fit the theory.
When I spoke of the spirits of my forefathers, I was speaking in terms of
the American Indian forefathers. I know this comes across as mystic, but I
don't see it that way. As I see it, it is just a part of me, a part that has been
there since birth. It's not a philosphy in my eye; it is a fact. To me, it
is just as real as a bolder is to the eye. It's there, and it is not goingto
go away. I don't think I could function without it. I have however recognized
that it causes me to think differently than most. What seems so real to
others does not look real to me at all. I could give examples from my last
10 or 15 years, but I'm afraid that would be going into it a bit further than I
need to, even though I do recognize this is where my Quality resides.
In case you are wondering, I have no idea exactly how much Cherokee blood is
flowing through my veins. I do not live on a reservation, and have not even
been around the Cherokee since childhood, except to visit my family in that
area. I have not studied to see why I am the way I am; I have just accepted it
as a natural way to be. If I found out there was actually no Cherokee blood
in my family tree, wouldn't that be a hoot. :o)
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Chin
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 : Tue Nov 16 2004 - 12:37:28 GMT