From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 19:50:54 GMT
Hi Dan
Thanks for the info:
Clearly Pirsig is making a claim of originality
for the MOQ here. There is some truth to this claim.
Particularly with respect to the langauge he uses,
such as Quality, DQ and SQ which are very good and useful.
But there is also plenty of reason to see other thinkers
as opposed to SOM. I have read such statements in the
last month in both Hegel and Nietzsche for example, absolutely
explicit discussion of the limitations of subject-object dualism.
I do not think it is particularly important to put Pirsig in context,
although this can be done, like any origianl author Pirsig probably
does not like this, and the concern of philosophy departments with
understanding rather than thinking is depressing.
But I do think it is important to bring other supporters
to the party where they exist. The fact of the matter is that thinkers like
Heidegger have great influence in academic circles compared to Pirsig.
Clearly Pirsig had great success with ZMM and less with Lila. I am
very disappointed that Lila did not repeat the success of ZMM but it is
a more difficult book and a certain moment has passed. Did other people
feel the same or do they have greater hope for the fate of Pirsig's books?
Maybe there is some hope of Pirsig influencing other writers but the moment
with a wider audience has passed for now. Unless the film idea ever gets off
the
ground again, as people seem to be more drawn to film than books. But film
is not so good with ideas as opposed to images. I think the engagement
demonstrated
by people at this site shows that they wish to understand Pirsig rather than
categorise
him. Of course, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc have been categorised in their time
and most
people fail to really understand them or even read them. I hope Pirsig does
not suggest
that we cease to go back and read the neglected corners of thinking, because
such was the
journey that he made himself. For example Hegel never said anything about
thesis, antithesis
followed by synthesis. He suggested that the understanding could only work
using opposed
categories, that to fully grasp in dialectical reason these opposites (e.g.
subject and object) you need
to seek what is common to the two terms, that underlying all opposites is a
concrete whole. Sounds
pretty familiar to Pirsig's use of the Quality concept, although, of course
not identical. So that's my
invitation to Hegel to join the party. Although I suspect he would probably
eat us all alive, intellectually
that is.
Nice to hear from you Dan.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: MD intellectual level
Hello everyone
>From: <ant.mcwatt@ntlworld.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD intellectual level
>Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:42:00 +0000
>
>Re: The intellectual level
>
>Bo said:
>
>We know what philosophers Pirsig refers to in his work and (your)
>Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger are not among them. And if existentialism can
>be said to be a parallel or forerunner for the MOQ ...maybe?
>
>Matt said:
>
>Pirsig does refer flatteringly to Whitehead in his reference to Whitehead's
>"dim apprehension" and I thought Pirsig referenced Bergson once (possibly
>in his line-up of philosophers that other people said he sounded like).
>
>Ant:
>
>I also thought Pirsig made a direct reference to Bergson but it isn't in
>ZMM, SODV or LILA.
Hi Matt and Anthony
Robert Pirsig mentions Bergson in Lila's Child, note #126:
"I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is obviously not
Platt's
intention. It is like saying that science is really a form of religion.
There is some truth to
that, but it has the effect dismissing science as really not very important.
The MOQ is in
opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of that
system which it
opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have read that the MOQ is the same as
Plato, Aristotle,
Plotinus, Hegel, James, Peirce, Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even
though these
people are not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of
comparison is what I
have meant by the term, "philosophology." It is done by people who are not
seeking to
understand what is written but only to classify it so that they don't have
to see it as any
thing new. God knows, the MOQ has never had two better friends than Bo and
Platt, so
this is no criticism of their otherwise brilliant thinking. It's just that I
see a lowering of
the quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to
that which it
opposes."
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Worried about inbox overload? Get MSN Extra Storage now!
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
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 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 19:57:00 GMT