From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 02:18:19 BST
Sam and all MOQers:
dmb said previously:
Sam, you persist in making the assertion that Pirsig's ideas about mysticism
are polluted by Modernity and SOM. And yet the quotes (reproduced below)
that I provided... show that this idea is doesn't even come close to making
sense.
Sam replied:
I don't understand what the word 'experience' means in Pirsig's sentence 'in
the MoQ experience comes first', ie, is not 'between a pre-existing object
and subject'. 'Experience' in western philosophy for the last few hundred
years has been precisely SOM. Pirsig now asserts that in the MoQ
'experience' doesn't imply SOM; he has taken a term which had a fairly clear
sense in previous philosophy, and has given it a new meaning. I just don't
know how he does that.
dmb says:
Really? Well, that explains nearly everything, doesn't it? No wonder you
can't let go of the idea of the individuality in the intellect, the idea of
an individual soul in a relationship with God as other, the idea of the
mystical experience as a subjective, emotional experience. See, this is the
irony. You have accused Pirsig's view of being polluted by SOM, but its
actually just that you keep thinking of the MOQ in terms of SOM. I haven't
looked at the contents of the posts yet, but noticed this same error in the
thread that was named something like "how do intellectual patterns respond
to Quality?"
The error is contained in the question itself, see? The question treats
intellectual patterns as if they were a subjective self and treats Quality
as if it were the objective world. But in Pirsig's view these patterns do
not respond to Quality so much as they ARE a response to Quality. They are
the fallout from the Quality event, form which subjects and objects are
later (habitually and automatically) deduced...
Ha! I just realized that I was responding as if you wanted to hear an
explanation, but since you have already read and studied Pirsig's books and
have already heard my explanations on these particular matters for years I
guess there's not much chance that a few more words will make any
difference. I suppose that's why...
Sam concluded:
What I think he has done is taken James' understandings a step further, but
as James was precisely using the SOM sense, I don't think that achieves what
he wants it to achieve.
dmb says:
James was presicely using the SOM sense of experience, so Pirsig is too? Um,
excuse me Padre, but didn't you just get done saying that, " 'experience' in
western philosophy for the last few hundred
years has been precisely SOM."? So your eagerness to point this out in James
only demonstrates a lack of even-handedness on your part, doesn't it? On top
of that, its completely obvious to any reader that Pirsig attacks SOM in
very explicit terms throughout ZAMM, not least of all because of its
inability to deal with mysticism. So I have to say that this particular line
of arguments is among your weakest and worst. I learn nothing from it and
only get frustrated at your apparent incorrigibility on the topic. Maybe you
ought to go back and take a look at that whole copernican revolution thing
again. You don't have to accept it or believe in it, but you could at least
understand what it is you're rejecting BEFORE you reject it. Otherwise, we
will never even be on the same topic. Otherwise you will never be able to
discuss mysticism with me in any meaningful way. Otherwise all the key terms
in our debate will continue to have two completely different, if not
opposed, meanings. Otherwise, our little chats just won't be worth the time
and effort. Otherwise, they're quite pointless.
Thanks for your (wasted) time.
dmb
"This means Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject
and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced
from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and
objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!"
[ZMM Ch19]
"In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting
object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or
object....So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes later.
This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with
its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure." [LILA'S CHILD
p548]
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/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 : Sun Aug 21 2005 - 02:45:32 BST