From: MarshaV (marshalz@charter.net)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 23:45:51 GMT
Hi Sam,
I think your statements are full of baloney.
I don't think you will ever accept the Metaphysics of Quality, because to
do so would negate you chosen vocation. You are a interpreter of what you
believe to be God's word, and the Christian tradition, a theist
religion. It's your persona, 24/7. MOQ is anti-theist.
But keep it up. I've learned much from the replies you get.
Marsha
At 07:14 PM 3/14/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>Splitting this off from the other thread, as I want to try and keep that
>to the question of pure experience. You asked "How could one approach
>addressing your "severe tension" without a clear explanation of what you
>mean by "discovered or been taught". What are you comparing?"
>
>My long term interlocutors (like DMB, Wim and Matt) have, I think, a
>pretty good idea of where I'm coming from. But it's probably not a bad
>thing to try and summarise my view.
>
>I'd begin by saying that I think Pirsig is great, he's very lucid and
>stimulating to read, and I always feel refreshed whenever I return to what
>he has written (when I've had too much MD that is). I think ZMM is a work
>of genius; Lila I'm not so convinced by. In other words, I think that in
>Lila Pirsig reversed his decision in ZMM and decided to climb up the
>mountain of metaphysics. So you could say that what I have problems with
>is the 'metaphysics' part of the MoQ, and not the Quality part. So I think
>the language of Quality, SQ and DQ is tremendously fertile, and, with one
>more or less significant modification (my 'eudaimonic' proposal), I am
>quite comfortable with the different levels and how they inter-relate.
>
>The severe tensions are really reducible to two.
>Firstly, I think the way that DQ is described within the system of the MoQ
>has great difficulties. I think Pirsig has retained influences from the
>empirical tradition that are no longer sustainable. I think that 'pure
>experience' doesn't do what he wants it to do, and that it is in many ways
>a confused notion in and of itself. The way out of this tension seems to
>me to be something along the lines of Scott's 'contradictory identity'
>which doesn't privilege DQ over SQ, and abandoning the language of
>empiricism that Pirsig has retained.
>Secondly, I think the MoQ is a metaphysical structure that pre-dates
>Wittgenstein. I don't think it's possible to do metaphysics in quite the
>same way once Wittgenstein has been taken on board; it's 'status' is
>different. This is what I'm wanting to pursue with Anthony. In other
>words, I think that - because, so far as I know, he's never read any
>Wittgenstein - Pirsig is still employing some residual Cartesian
>assumptions about 'philosophical psychology'. I think that the MoQ can
>survive the removal of these assumptions, I just think that the way the
>levels are understood will be modified (the social level will not be
>'subjective' in any sense, for example).
>
>I'm happy to further unpack these if you like.
>
>Sam
>
>
>
>
>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 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 23:51:44 GMT