RE: MD A metaphysics - Originality

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 16:03:48 BST

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"

    Platt, I come to praise Pirsig, not to bury him.

    Originality is relative I guess. Multiple independant persons can equally
    originally think the same thing at the same or different times, though as a
    philosophy scholar and teacher this defence of ignorance is a bit weak for
    Pirsig himself.

    Anyway, "Far from original" did overstate my real position - sorry for that.

    The idea that "world order" is primarily about relative values, rather than
    something absolute looks less original to me, but no less true, with every
    other source I read. However, saying that values are ultimately morals
    sounds a bit tautological, or simply etymological, to me. As Pirsig points
    out the words people have used over the millennia for quality, value, moral,
    good, art, etc show a lot of common heritage - dare I say evolution :-).

    Even the MoQ itself has (near) parallels elswhere (I've done Maslow to death
    already) but I do think it's Pirsigs finest contribution, together with his
    works of art. As I say prominently on my own Pirsig Pages "The relevance of
    this book (ZMM) to our present-day situation seems to me impossible to
    exaggerate." quoting Dr James Willis. (And I still believe it, more so with
    every day that passes, more so with every immoral decision by organised
    management / government, justified by prevailing pseudo-scientific
    rationale, etc.)

    Notwithstanding Pirsig's excellent contributions, it is true that many
    others (including Northrop) have done a more thorough job than he on
    analysing the errors of SOMist ways, and promoting more pragmatic (or more
    oriental) values based views of life. The price these philosophologists pay
    is that their books make a lot less gripping reading than Pirsig of course -
    another of RMP's finest contributions.

    Finally, a point of order ...
    I was not sugesting Pirsig / MoQ was anything like a "prevalent world view",
    far from it. I wish it were, that's why I'm here.
    He is one of many thousands of people, who for centuries (nay millennia, it
    seems) have been screaming out "the prevalent world-view is wrong".
    Fortunately some of us are still listening :-)

    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
    Sent: 15 September 2003 14:54
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: RE: MD A metaphysics - Originality

    Ian,

    > I also consider Pirsig far from original, except in his
    > creation of his patterns of value and levels of static and dynamic
    > quality (MoQ) model as a marvellous practical tool or framework through
    > which to view the world.

    > Talking of Pirsig's non-originality, for me it is clear how Northrop and
    > James influenced him, and that he acknowledges this, but what is not at
    > all clear is whether he was really unaware of the existentialists, other
    > pragmatists and later schools of thought. Not wrong, but intriguing.
    > What he doesn't acknowledge is the extent to which the Aristoleian
    > "Chicago school" furore was well documented by Northrop (the book he
    > read on the troopship back from Korea) long before his "megalomaniac"
    > letter to the chairman.

    > Talking of Northrop, I'm still working through the Meeting of East and
    > West. It's a marvellous book. Apart from the MoQ itself, there is little
    > in ZMM / Lila that's not in Northrop, and a lot more thorough
    > philosophological review of how prevalent world-views came to be. Pirsig
    > does of course provide shorter sentences and more dramatic novels though
    > :-)

    Pirsig far from original? Where in Northrop or any other philosopher or
    writer past or present will you find an assumption like this:

    "Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're
    identical. And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that
    means morality is also the primary reality of the world. The world is
    primarily a moral order." (Lila, ch.7)

    That can hardly be called a "prevalent world-view." As far as I know,
    it's original with Pirsig. Reality is morality? Huh? The man must have
    missed his morning medication. :-)

    Platt

    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

    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 Sep 15 2003 - 16:04:44 BST