From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 20:12:13 GMT
Bo: 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.
DM: As a 20 year reader in philosophy this is true
of much of philosophy but not the whole, Pirsig is no way
as unique as you think -IMO. Read my book that I wrote
before reading a word of Pirsig, I have changed two sentences
since reading Pirsig.
Bo:Is quantity (of books) the criterion?
DM: If that is what you think I mean you insult me.
Bo:But did Heidegger identify any S/O METAPHYSICS? Or - what's
> more - create a new one? Not that I have heard of.
DM: Go and read some. It will deepen your understanding of SOM infact
not undermine your hero. Open yourself up a bit.
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: MD What is the role of SO divide in MOQ?
> 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
>
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 - 21:20:16 GMT