From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Aug 23 2004 - 01:42:37 BST
Ham and MOQers:
Ham Priday said:
.......................I suppose that's what this forum is for -- an endless
game of "Pirsig Says". Yet, it's discouraging to me that the circularity of
these word games brings us no closer to what the author had in mind. And I
have to agree with Platt that the fault lies with the author in failing to
provide us with a formal exposition of his metaphysics.
dmb:
The fault lies with the author, eh? I doubt it. Endless word games that
bring us no closer to the author's intent? Speak for yourself, mister. I
don't know why you think a "formal exposition" is required. One might think
that a published book or two would be enough to thoroughly explain his
metaphysics. I guess some folks are just never satisfied.
Ham said:
Since my personal interpretation of Pirsig's Quality is no better or worse
than anyone else's, ...
dmb says:
I disagree. Based on your comments so far, it looks like you have not yet
read Lila or, if you did, read it without much comprehension. One of the
reasons Pirsig uses 'quality' as his central term is because the fact that
some things are better than others is impossible to deny. I whole-heartedly
believe that some interpretations of Pirsig's Quality are better than others
and, not that you're stupid or crazy or wrong, yours is most definately
worse than some - and better than others. Why do I think Ham doesn't get the
MOQ?....
Ham handed us this:
It's only conjecture on my part, of course, but I think Pirsig "wants" to
posit an "esthetic" reality but is afraid to do so because it will label him
an Idealist -- or even worse, "a religious nut" -- and our peripatetic
author has ample reason to be sensitive on that score. Hence, he has
stopped short of providing us with the logical conclusion to his theory. His
Quality -- even as a "dynamic system"-- doesn't measure up to the Absolute
Source we're looking for. And you folks are all left hanging. ..Okay, now
put on your boxing gloves!
dmb replies:
Its comments like these that make me believe you are trying to write the
book review without having read the book. I still have 80 posts to read and
I suppose somebody has already jumped all over you for this and explained
that Pirsig's MOQ does posit an aesthetic reality. And Dynamic, as is
explained throughout Lila, means something very much beyond the usual sense
of the word. In fact, both of these oversights are addressed by simply
pointing out that Pirsig has described Dynamic Quality as "the
undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" and is both the source and goal of all
static patterns.
Ham asked:
Who or what "evolves" these values, and where can they be found in animal
tissue? I'm, sorry Platt; these phrases may resonate in some way with LILA
fans, like the punch-line of joke no. 26. But they lack substance. Again,
it's not your fault. It's the fact they refer to a philosophy that was
never postulated.
dmb says:
The philosophy WAS spelled out in Lila and even Platt's sketchy descriptions
should remind anyone of that.
Ham demanded:
...............................................That forces are "dynamic"
goes without saying. To call them Dynamic adds nothing to the concept
unless one chooses to read some unconventional meaning into this adjective.
Obviously it must. So why doesn't he define the meaning he wants us to
infer? After all, what are words without meaning?
dmb says:
The first move, the first split, the first distinction made by the MOQ is
between static and Dyamic quality. Yes, they are endowed with unconventional
meaning. They divide all of reality. And Pirsig most certainly does explain
this in Lila. Again, it seems you haven't read the book.
Pirsig states his problem:
> "My problem with "essence" is not that it isn't there or that it is not
> the same as Quality. It is that positivists usually deny "essence" as
> something like "God" or "the absolute" and dismiss it experimentally
> unverifiable, which is to say they think you are some kind of religious
> nut."
Ham replied:
There it is in a "nutshell". He's not denying Essence; he'd just prefer not
to admit what it implies.
dmb says:
Oh, good lord. Can't you see that Pirsig is very politely telling you that
essesntialism is easily dismissed as religious hooey? It also fails the
mystic's objection of naming the nameless, but, around here, we're all
whores in that regard. So one side will dismiss it as religious
gobble-dee-gook and the mystics will dismiss is as limited. Add to that,
Pirsig's righteous infuriation at sneaking theism in through the back door
and, despite the admitted similarities, your philosophy is objectionable on
several key points AND you're apparently in no position to compare the two
anyway.
Sorry, Ham, its nothing personal. It just seems to me that you're seeking
some kind of validation for Essentialism from MOQers, but don't really
understand or care about the MOQ.
And I think that's weird.
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Mon Aug 23 2004 - 03:01:00 BST