From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:23:50 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: skutvik@online.no
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: RE: MD intellectual level
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:16:36 +0000
>
>Dan, Matt, Ant and All. (Platt & Scott mentioned)
>
>On 3 Jan. you wrote:
>
>Bo said prev.
> > > >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.
>
>Dan says:
> > Robert Pirsig mentions Bergson in Lila's Child, note #126:
>
> > Pirsig:
> > "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."
>
>I don't have "The Child" with me here (Dan has now informed us)
>but it looks like Platt speaking about science as a modern myth.
>Here I agree with Pirsig, but can't understand his putting me in with
>those who wants ...TO SUBORDINATE THE MOQ TO WHAT IT
>OPPOSES. (Scott is the real sinner here ;-))
Hi Bo
Platt is writing about your idea that SOM is the intellectual level of the
MOQ and the role SOM plays in the MOQ. Following this line of reasoning,
Platt writes: "...the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning," to
which Robert Pirsig replies:
"It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures
such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known. SOM
reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ is not
subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember that the central
reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is
understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind.
Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as
saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn’t tell
us anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn’t tell us
anything about the essence of the MOQ." (Lila's Child, note #125)
I think that's why he includes you in his next annotation that I quoted
previously.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory
offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
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 Jan 06 2004 - 17:25:08 GMT