Re: MD What is the role of SO divide in MOQ?

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 16:41:43 GMT

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: MD SQ-SQ tension in Mozart's Symphony No38"

    David M

    On 13 Feb. you wrote:

    > 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.

    You rejecting the SOM long before ...etc? How can you reject a
    metaphysics without knowing that you are up against a
    metaphysics ...or having a new one to convert to? So unless you
    anticipated the MOQ I don't take you seriously. Look, there are
    no lack of thinkers protesting the subject/object divide who have
    gone to great lengths to prove it wrong, but it invariably ends in
    some materialism or idealism. But even by proving that mind has
    its origin in matter or vice versa the S/O can't be removed. Look
    to Kant, he proved that reality is made up by the subject, yet
    there was a little objective "thing in itself" left out there. Heck, just
    by speaking of a subject the object is invoked. No David, you
    don't understand. Pirsig is the only thinker who has solved the
    riddle.

    > > 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?

    Is quantity (of books) the criterion?

    > 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

    But did Heidegger identify any S/O METAPHYSICS? Or - what's
    more - create a new one? Not that I have heard of.

    > 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.

    Heidegger may be the greatest, but from academical
    "philosophology" nothing as stunningly new as the MOQ could
    grow, only finer splits of the SOM. There simply HAD to arrive a
    madman like Pirsig with no credentials, only with great
    intelligence and foolish enough to pursue the SOM to absurdity.
    That brought him to the metaphysical no-man's land from where
    he saw the solution.

    Amen
    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 14 2004 - 16:54:47 GMT