Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:04:41 +0100
Hi Donna and squad
Donald T Palmgren wrote:
>
>
> Now, my fellows, as far as being still in S-O-thinking and "not
> getting" Pirsig... Please. For one thing, Magnas admited that he didn't
> say anything Pirsig didn't ("It's all in LILA," something to that effect).
> But I'm not really interested in re-stating or re-treding Mr.P's ground --
> ZMM and LILA just arn't the kinds of books that need excessive explication
> -- they're not like CoPR or Hegel or some of these essotericly complexed
> Phil. tomes.
And there's a good reason for it. Had Pirsig written his books in that
format, he would at the same time have entered the same church of reason
he tried to confront. We discussed this the other week and came to the
conclusion that the format of the books was the best to choose to conform
to the MoQ itself.
> See, I set out to proove Pirsig right, and I figured I could
> re-enforce the MoQ by seeking manefestations of it elsewher (like you've
> been doing here) -- I found some, then more... then more. So many I
> realized that Pirsig hadn't said anything as new as I'd assumed. Pirsig is
> unique in form (a psudo-atobio-novel-philosophical treatise) but not
> content.
So where did you find these manifestations? In other philosophies?
In observations? You'll have to give us some examples. You don't have
to protect us from the rough philosophical hardball court, I'm sure
we'll manage.
One, or maybe the, reason you heard that cultural immune system siren go
off the other day is that you still haven't dealt with the statement I
cited last week.
"One has no right to take issue with an opposing position until he is
able to restate his understanding of that position sufficiently enough
to receive the other's approval".
A non angel can't be a fallen one.
> I realized, for instance, that he missed (or mis-read) Kant. I
> asked why. Perhaps because he read S-O as M-B AND subjective-objective?
> (Now I read ZMM 3 times and LILA once before I caught this, but once you
> see it, you see it everywhere in his books.)
What you missed, is that the difference between S-O and M-B compared to
the difference between them and MoQ are like the difference between
green and slightly lighter green compared to them and the painting
they're on.
> Now you can say I agree w/ MoQ or I don't -- the truth is, as I've
> said, I find that kind of partisanship is the ultimate roadblock to
> original thought and half the reason achedemic philosophy is in such a
> sorry state.
According to the MoQ, that's a contradiction in terms. Remember Phædrus
of ZMM in the chemistry lab? He spent all his time trying to prove
different hypotheses, and in trying them out, he always found more
than he was able to try out. There was no way he could "objectively"
choose which to try and which to throw away. He had to choose by
other means, using Quality.
I read somewhere, "Xerox never comes up with anything original".
Well, neither does objectivity.
> (If you learn anything from Pheadrus' experience in ZMM it
> should be (God, I hate saying that; it's such a cliche) that the "We are
> saved; they are damned" mentality is a deathblow to Phil.) Everyone is so
> cought up in who wins the game we forget it stop and ask, "What game are
> we playing?"
I'm playing the game of finding a metaphysics that best explains
observations without contradictions.
> Enough of me. The Fallen Angel is takeing off for the weekend. See
> you soon, and be good, now. :)
Good? Hmm... I see improvement. I'm looking forward to Kant 2 on monday, C'ya.
Magnus
-- "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good" N. Peart - Rush-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST