From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 15:02:48 GMT
Hi DMB,
In response to some questions seeking clarification etc, DMB said:
> dmb says:
> That's just bullshit. I have explained things in my own words virtually
> every time I've posted - for years. The quotes only lend support and
> clarity. Yes, the expertise of the scholars quoted does add some weight, but
> these ideas certainly do NOT stand or fall upon anyone's authority. In fact,
> the various voices I use are meant to show that its not about this guy or
> that. Its about hearing good ideas expressed in various voices, including my
> own.
When I was doing that Google search, I came across this from a post in November 2002:
~~~~~
In Lila's Child (available from Dan Glover) there is this passage, from 'Jason'.
"A very respected man once told me that one has no right to take issue with an opposing position
until he is able to restate his understanding of that position sufficiently enough to receive the
other's approval. Perhaps this sort of active listening would serve us well." (LC Jason p21)
John B quoted this back in June/July [2002]:
"The 'third rate' critic attacks the original thinker on the basis of the rhetorical consequences of
his thought and defends the status quo against the corrupting effects of the philosopher's rhetoric.
'Second rate' critics defend the same received wisdom by semantic analyses of the thinker which
highlight ambiguities and vagueness in his terms and arguments. But 'first rate' critics "delight
in the originality of those they criticise...; they attack an optimal version of the philosopher's
position--one in which the holes in the argument have been plugged or politely ignored."
- a thought which you found 'worthy'.
If we're really going to get anywhere in our discussions - and I would like to - perhaps you could
try to move away from the 'third rate' level, start 'actively listening' to what I'm trying to say,
and then come up with some of your own criticisms, rather than just parroting the New Age guru
_du_jour_? A good beginning might be to restate your understanding of my 'campaign' - especially
"Now its clear to me what you're up to." If it's that clear to you, demonstrate it. Otherwise I'll
be confirmed in my impression that you prefer adolescent posturing to serious and intelligent
discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's a little depressing that we have got absolutely nowhere since then - except further entrenched.
Which is why in this thread I have been trying to get a clear understanding of your position, ie to
try and restate your position in a way that you agreed with; and ONLY THEN to actually explore where
our differences lie. To that end, I'd really appreciate it if you would say whether the following is
a fair summary of your position or not:
a) The central truths of philosophical mysticism are revealed in an experience;
b) the central truths of philosophical mysticism are common to all the great religious and mythical
traditions;
c) as such it represents a 'common core' underlying religious traditions;
d) the religious traditions often prevent adherents discerning these central truths;
e) the tradition known as the perennial philosophy (ie philosophical mysticism) is free of these
problems;
f) Pirsig is a philosophical mystic in this sense.
Sam
"A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is valid, is wearisome." -
Wittgenstein
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 : Mon Nov 22 2004 - 16:26:05 GMT