From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Feb 06 2005 - 12:01:04 GMT
DMB and all,
We're just back round to "mysticism" again.
Although you choose very pejorative words (mysticism is itself one) -
narcissism, flattery, etc ... you are simply stating common sense ...
Everybody's interpretation of new information is based on what they already
believe, and that will (by definition) always look selfish (subjective) from
the third person viewpoint.
So whether that third person believes in scientific objectivity or god, any
alternative first persion view will be branded "mysticism" by theother two,
unless it is consistent with the third persion view in which case the "halo"
effect simply produces agreement, re-inforcing the third-person's
first-person view ... ditto.
You call it narcissism & flattery, I call it reality.
What do you believe ? is the only meaningful question.
(Saying what you believe someone else believes, just prolongs the agony)
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" < >
To: < >
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:01 AM
Subject: RE: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
> Marsha, Matt, Sam, Scott and all weavers using this thread:
>
> dmb said to Matt:
> If I follow you here, if Pirsig is to be consistently pragmatic he's gonna
> have to let loose some of his ideas. Hmmm. Let me guess which one is at
> the
> top of your list. Does it have anything to do with pure experience, a
> mystical experience and its validity?...
>
> Marsha
> Could it be Faith? Is that what is problematic about MOQ? That there is
> no room for faith in the existence of God?
>
> dmb replies:
> Some of these guys have been around for a while and the history of
> postings
> has led me to conclude that Matt rejects philosophical mysticism in order
> to
> maintain a kind of atheistic materialism, a kind of secular common sense.
> Sam rejects the same thing to maintain the opposite view, a kind of
> theistic
> traditionalism, a kind of religious common sense. They make odd
> bedfellows,
> but join forces in their attempts to defeat philosophical mysticism. I'm
> honestly not sure what Scott is doing. He seems to be interested in
> defeating the MOQ by quoting Pirsig's SUPPORTERS. Sometimes he looks like
> he's defending the faith and sometimes he looks every bit as nihilistic as
> Matt.
>
> Sorry for talking about you in the third person guys. Sometimes it just
> gets
> too complicated to do it any other way...
>
> In any case, each of them seems to be motivated by a desire to tinker with
> the MOQ until they get a version of the MOQ that looks like whatever
> hobbyhorse they brought with them. I like to call it epistemological
> narcissism and I also subscribe to it. This view asserts that truth
> consists
> in whatever reflects well on me and my choices and my beliefs. This view
> asserts that Goodness is essentially whatever works for me and that the
> validity of any particular philosophy rests upon how flattering it is to
> my
> self-image. And since the dissolution of the ego and letting go of
> intellectual prejudices are so central to mysticism, you can imagine what
> horror it is to also be an epistemological narcissist! ;-)
>
> OK. That's a bit cruel, but hopefully you see the point of this rather
> pointed point.
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> 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 -
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 : Sun Feb 06 2005 - 12:15:56 GMT