From: MarshaV (marshalz@charter.net)
Date: Sat Nov 26 2005 - 10:37:48 GMT
At 06:14 PM 11/25/2005, you wrote:
>Marsha said:
>Your post feels like being asked to sort a huge pile of mixed
>seeds. I don't feel up to the task, but I will give it a try. I'd
>like to know where my contradictions might be.
>...
>Problems? Where do they come from?
>
>Matt:
>I think this is the biggest problem I have. Its tough to convince
>people to be afraid of what they aren't afraid of. If you don't see
>any problems, then I have to convince you that there are
>problems. Of course, on the other hand, its not like I think
>philosophical problems are that big a deal. I think the only people
>that lead slightly less happy lives because of philosophical
>problems are philosophers. Other people just don't even have any
>idea what you're talking about. So, if you don't want to play the
>game of philosophy (which says "don't leave contradictions around"),
>then that's perfectly fine. But the problems I'm trying to point
>out are problems only _if_ you play the game.
Marsha:
The MOQ was not my first exposure to philosophy. My first exposure
was through the writings of Krishnamurti. Who, by the way,
constantly stated: Don't believe what I say, find out for
yourself. My next exposure was to study Eastern Philosophy
(Vedanta), and then Western Philosophy. My knowledge has
limits. When I first read ZMM I became like a slot machine:
jackpot-jackpot-jackpot. (It was those red-winged blackbirds.) My
interest in philosophy is in 'what I can know and how I can know
it.', and how that applies to living a life. I am not a professional
philosopher. I had experiences of the direct-kind before reading
ZMM. Everyone has direct experiences. To varying degrees, I learned
to pay attention.
Matt previously wrote:
..., but I think problems will also emerge when you start to push
them into philosophical service.
Marsha now asks:
Philosophy is a very broad topic: Eastern, Western, branch, twig,
leaf? Where is your 'philosophical service' located? Are there no
contradictions within Philosophy? Seems to me that even in logic
there is the contradiction in assuming first premise.
You write "So, if you don't want to play the game of philosophy
(which says "don't leave contradictions around"), then that's
perfectly fine. But the problems I'm trying to point out are
problems only _if_ you play the game." What game is that? A game
of thoughts that circle around and eat themselves? You'll win that
game, but I bet the prize will be different than your
expectations. I appreciate direct experiences. I appreciate the
contradiction that I cannot know everything.
I have not been writing about Pirsig's MOQ . Although I don't see it
having contradictions. I have been writing about my up-to-the-present
experience and limited interpretation of MOQ. That's all.
I will continue to read your posts because I find them
interesting. I'm wondering how you will carve up DQ and how you will
handle what is leftover.
Marsha
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 : Sat Nov 26 2005 - 12:08:29 GMT