From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 05 2005 - 20:21:21 BST
Bo,
I'm not sure if you read my three part post. If you had, I don't think
you'd be so cavalier in your four points.
But, I suppose I should expect that by now. I mean, to describe me as
having "such easy play with DMB and Anthony," but becoming "baffled when
confronted" with your "real MoQ." Wow. That just takes the cake. To me,
that's entirely backwards. Of course, maybe you're right. I am baffled
after all. By you more than your philosophy, though. Which is why the
situation is so strange.
1) "The Greek cultural upheaval marks the emergence of what - in MOQ - is
called the intellectual level."
As far as I can tell, this is more or less true. Pirsig thinks that
Socrates marked the emergence of something. In _Lila_, he more or less said
that it was the ascendency of intellectual patterns.
2) "This upheaval is in ZMM described as the emergence of the
Subject/Object Metaphysics (SOM)."
Yeah, ok, as far as I can tell, this is more or less true. In _ZMM_, Pirsig
more or less calls this the SOM. (Less because, unless I'm mistaken, Pirsig
didn't coin "SOM" in ZMM. And at any rate, his label for the enemy is
varied throughout, making the enemy more like a hydra then a single-mouthed
leviathan.)
3) "Thus when we speak about MOQ's intellectual level we speak about SOM."
This is where you have a _lot_ more interpretive work to do. One, you have
to link ZMM's boogey-man with Lila's (spotty) description of the emergence
in Greece (and then with his post-Lila work). I don't think it is as easy
as it seems, and you've simply taken this for granted. Two, you have to
link what Pirsig means by "intellectual level" to what Pirsig means by
"SOM." This is certainly not as easy as it looks, if for no other reason
than _Pirsig doesn't do it himself_. If Pirsig meant it, why didn't he do
it? Simply pointing to the origins of two narratives isn't good enough.
You need more than that. Three, what _you_ mean by "SOM" is not what
everybody else seems to mean by "SOM" (so you can't just assume that we'll
all agree to that without addressing varied uses) and, as I argued, is not
what _Pirsig_ means by "SOM" as the name for his boogey-man in ZMM. So you
need a better argument for drawing out your version of SOM from Pirsig.
4) "The MOQ rejects the SOM which means both its subjective and objective
aspect."
One, how could we reject that which is intrinsically us? Two, you have done
no work in addressing the varied uses of SOM or what it means to reject "its
subjective and objective aspect." You've spent most of your time condemning
everyone else to one or the other. Three, if the "MoQian standpoint" (the
one you stand in that (mysteriously) rejects SOM) is linked to Zen
enlightenment, you have much more work to do in trying to pronounce how they
are the same. How do you attain the MoQian standpoint? Is it just like
Zen? Is it something else? Does it just happen? Can you do it while
philosophizing? How do you talk to other people who aren't in the MoQian
standpoint? Aren't you in a different reality then them?
You're right, the fifth point more or less follows naturally, but it is more
or less disastrous.
Pirsig was quoted:
From a philosophic idealist viewpoint there is nothing but intellect. From
a Zen viewpoint it is a part of the world of everyday affairs that one
leaves behind upon becoming enlightened and then rediscovers from a Buddha's
point of view.
Bo commented:
This is what I have been saying: To you (Matt and Paul) there is nothing but
intellect. Everything - including the MOQ itself - are intellectual ideas.
But from a MOQ (Zen) viewpoint intellect is part of the static development
(the world of everyday affairs) that one leaves behind upon understanding
the MOQ (becoming enlightened) and then looks back upon in a SOL light
(rediscovers from a Buddha's point of view).
Matt:
One, we've never said that there is nothing but intellect. You've never
established that we've been saying that. You've never done the work of
engaging us enough to gain a refined understanding of either of our's
intentions and why we talk the way we do.
Two, if the MoQian (Zen) standpoint is one that leaves behind the static
levels, where is it? Where is this "standpoint"? Wouldn't you have to be
standing somewhere? Is it just a bad metaphor for talking about
enlightenment? Then why are you talking about it? At some point, I
presume, it becomes more misleading to keep talking about enlightenment,
because to talk about it is to not be enlightened, right? Talking is
intellect and all that.
Three, if the MoQian (Zen) standpoint is what is reached when you are
enlightened, then how do you reach it? Can you reach it by intellect, by
philosophizing? How could that be, though? Wouldn't that just doom you to
static existence? So, how is talking about the "SOL light," the lantern we
get when we become enlightened, help us get to enlightenment? And how do we
use our newly and mysteriously attained lantern to help others find the way?
By talking the way you do about things? And how would we know if we've
reached the MoQian/Zen standpoint? Would we know because we think exactly
like you do, all this SOL stuff? Sounds kinda' convenient for you, doesn't
it?
Okay, now I realize I've been putting an overabundance of questions to you
about your philosophy. So, as I wanted to before, how about we start with
the textual question. You want to claim that Pirsig's original insight is
that the intellect is the S/O dualism. I claimed that you were wrong (and
provided a reading of his text to support my claim). Pirsig never had that
insight in ZMM.
What'dya say? Ball's in your court.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 Jul 05 2005 - 21:02:27 BST