From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 23:09:20 GMT
> 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.
>
> BO:Through my long Colin Wilson "career" I know enough about
> > Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre ..you name them, but the MOQ is of
> > another magnitude and makes their ways of presenting "the
> > problem" and solving it completely outdated
>
> DM: I can't begin to take this seriously. Heidegger -huge influence,
> Colin Wilson -not sure?
>
> 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?
> 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 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 outdated is just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.
>
> regards
> David M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <skutvik@online.no>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: MD What is the role of SO divide in MOQ?
>
>
> > Hi David M.
> >
> > 12 Feb. you wrote:
> >
> > > I have switched to the discuss because we have gone
> > > off subject I feel, unless you describe this discussion as
> > > an example of changing the MOQ. Overall I feel that
> > > your concern really is about the extent of the role of
> > > the SO divide in the world as experienced via an MOQ
> > > approach. I certainly agree that whatever is useful in the SOM
> > > can be retained in the MOQ, but I see no problem with changing
> > > the language of SOM and even dropping subject and object entirely.
> >
> > Dropping the S/O is neither feasible or desirable. As the
> > intellectual level it may stay around, it just carries no
> > metaphysical load any longer, while trying to start an Orwellian
> > "newspeak" is hopeless. 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.
> >
> > > As
> > > a philosophy student of 20 years this appeals to me because I am very
> > > aware of the SOM limitations, all around the uses of the subjects and
> > > objects language. I started off in the philosophy and history of
> > > science, spent many many years reading high German idealism, moving on
> > > to phenomenology and existentialism and getting a grip on
> > > post-modernism on the way. I wish I could use the language of those
> > > disciplines to deal with your questions/ problems but I don't think
> > > you have the background.
> >
> > Through my long Colin Wilson "career" I know enough about
> > Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre ..you name them, but the MOQ is of
> > another magnitude and makes their ways of presenting "the
> > problem" and solving it completely outdated.
> >
> > > I really recommend you read something like
> > > theCambridge companion to Heidegger's that may just about be
> > > accessible and really does a good job at explaining Heidegger's
> > > overcoming of the dualist (SOM) tradition. It is a deeper argument
> > > than Pirsig's
> >
> > Deeper argument than Pirsig! You must be joking Mr Morey. ;-)
> >
> > > but on very similar lines. In the philosophy of science
> > > there is now a very strong recognition of the problematic nature of
> > > the ideas of laws and objects. This is due to the falling away of
> > > determinism, being simply wrong as Popper says, and the more process
> > > based conceptual approaches where identifying separate objects rather
> > > than systems seems wrong headed. Popper does seem to point the way
> > > forward in his essay on propensities that Anthony also refers to. The
> > > closeness of this notion to Pirsig's static patterns is quite clear.
> > > You appeal to reason, but I take science as being exemplary here, and
> > > science is having less and less use for SOM language and categories.
> > > Essentially, I do not see why reason would lose anything if we dropped
> > > the SOM concepts entirely.
> >
> > I'm happy for you not seeing any problems here, wish I could join
> > you.
> >
> > > Heidegger's incredibly illuminating
> > > conception of what it is to be human aligns very closely with Pirsig's
> > > hints about the activities of DQ. In fact it gains significantly by
> > > overcoming the current blindspots of SOM. For further comments see
> > > below IN UPPER CASE:
> >
> > > I think your fears are unfounded, at least in my conception of the
> > > MOQ. kind regards David M
> >
> > Your praise of Paul shows that we have a totally different take of
> > it all.
> >
> > Sincerely
> > 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 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 23:39:36 GMT