From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 23:07:26 GMT
Bo: We may go on about mind-matter, body-
> soul and culture-nature ...etc. to our heart's delight, I have done it
> for years already.
DM: Well I would not, I want to be less-dualistic at certain levels, like
the MOQ,
I rejected dualism (SOM) long before I read Pirsig.
BO:Through my long Colin Wilson "career" I know enough about
> Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre ..you name them, but the MOQ is of
> another magnitude and makes their ways of presenting "the
> problem" and solving it completely outdated
DM: I can't begin to take this seriously. Heidegger -huge influence,
Colin Wilson -not sure?
Bo:Deeper argument than Pirsig! You must be joking Mr Morey. ;-)
DM: No, I like Pirsig's simplicity -that's a compliment by the way, but
Heidegger is a far
deeper and more developed thinker. Have you any idea how much Heidegger has
written?
He is also very difficult and many commentators have no idea what they are
talking about.
Have you read both like me, I do not think so. In particular Heidegger
tackles time whilst
Pirsig barely mentions it. Big hole. Heidegger tackles the philsophy of
language, Pirsig
touches upon it. Heidegger has written volumes on the construction of
dualism (SOM)
from Greek thought, Pirsig a few chapters. Heidegger then invents a language
in which you
can avoid the use of dualism and consider the implications. Heidegger has a
whole industry
working on interpreting him, there is a risk Pirsig may be forgotten -I hope
not. But you
can't tell who will have the greater significance long term, but Heidegger
outdated is just
plain silly, I personally think we have hardly begun to understand his work,
there is
also a great deal more yet to be published apparently. I only read Pirsig a
couple of years
ago and I enjoyed it a great deal but it was no revealation to me, the
analysis is offers
if really a subset of Heidegger's approach, Pirsig is to be congratulated on
his independent
questioning of dualism. We all come from different starting points but it is
not nice to spit
on mine. Obviously there are political downfalls with Heidegger, but most of
us have not had
to live through Nazi Germany and we should not forget that and ponder how we
would have
reacted and survived.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: MD What is the role of SO divide in MOQ?
> Hi David M.
>
> 12 Feb. you wrote:
>
> > I have switched to the discuss because we have gone
> > off subject I feel, unless you describe this discussion as
> > an example of changing the MOQ. Overall I feel that
> > your concern really is about the extent of the role of
> > the SO divide in the world as experienced via an MOQ
> > approach. I certainly agree that whatever is useful in the SOM
> > can be retained in the MOQ, but I see no problem with changing
> > the language of SOM and even dropping subject and object entirely.
>
> Dropping the S/O is neither feasible or desirable. As the
> intellectual level it may stay around, it just carries no
> metaphysical load any longer, while trying to start an Orwellian
> "newspeak" is hopeless. We may go on about mind-matter, body-
> soul and culture-nature ...etc. to our heart's delight, I have done it
> for years already.
>
> > As
> > a philosophy student of 20 years this appeals to me because I am very
> > aware of the SOM limitations, all around the uses of the subjects and
> > objects language. I started off in the philosophy and history of
> > science, spent many many years reading high German idealism, moving on
> > to phenomenology and existentialism and getting a grip on
> > post-modernism on the way. I wish I could use the language of those
> > disciplines to deal with your questions/ problems but I don't think
> > you have the background.
>
> Through my long Colin Wilson "career" I know enough about
> Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre ..you name them, but the MOQ is of
> another magnitude and makes their ways of presenting "the
> problem" and solving it completely outdated.
>
> > I really recommend you read something like
> > theCambridge companion to Heidegger's that may just about be
> > accessible and really does a good job at explaining Heidegger's
> > overcoming of the dualist (SOM) tradition. It is a deeper argument
> > than Pirsig's
>
> Deeper argument than Pirsig! You must be joking Mr Morey. ;-)
>
> > but on very similar lines. In the philosophy of science
> > there is now a very strong recognition of the problematic nature of
> > the ideas of laws and objects. This is due to the falling away of
> > determinism, being simply wrong as Popper says, and the more process
> > based conceptual approaches where identifying separate objects rather
> > than systems seems wrong headed. Popper does seem to point the way
> > forward in his essay on propensities that Anthony also refers to. The
> > closeness of this notion to Pirsig's static patterns is quite clear.
> > You appeal to reason, but I take science as being exemplary here, and
> > science is having less and less use for SOM language and categories.
> > Essentially, I do not see why reason would lose anything if we dropped
> > the SOM concepts entirely.
>
> I'm happy for you not seeing any problems here, wish I could join
> you.
>
> > Heidegger's incredibly illuminating
> > conception of what it is to be human aligns very closely with Pirsig's
> > hints about the activities of DQ. In fact it gains significantly by
> > overcoming the current blindspots of SOM. For further comments see
> > below IN UPPER CASE:
>
> > I think your fears are unfounded, at least in my conception of the
> > MOQ. kind regards David M
>
> Your praise of Paul shows that we have a totally different take of
> it all.
>
> Sincerely
> Bo
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 23:27:39 GMT