Greetings,
Bo, I had hoped that you might be able to enter the discussion with at least a modicum of interest
in finding common ground with the rest of the world but your rejection of what you call
'philosophology' (different to the philosophology referred to by Pirsig which is more a critique of
method) shows that you are not. You might just as well ignore everything anyone but yourself, Pirsig
and one or two others have said in the entire history of the world if you proscribe looking into
their thinking.
I take it that your confessed sticking to trivialities enables you to believe that Christians are
fundamentalist Protestant millenarians and that Muslims all wear veils and chop each others hands
off. This is the common perception but it is also utter nonsense. (c.f. materialism and idealism).
If your appeal is only to the ignorant and your method of persuasion is to wave a 'bugaboo'
(interestingly and illuminatingly this is Welsh for 'the devil'), then carry on. It is unfortunate
that you will find yourself in good company amongst any group you care to join, let alone this one.
I will pick up the analogy of branches on a tree where you claim that the MoQ has nothing to say to
either materialism or idealism. This is the heart of your problem. The branches of the tree, upon
spotting the trunk, can see themselves as extending downwards and actually being the trunk without
any radical change in their outlook. They look at the trunk and conclude that the whole tree is made
of wood. This doesn't change how they see themselves, it merely shows them that two different
branches can emerge from the same place. A coherent materialist realises this and he knows that
science can easily view fundamentals as particles. . . or waves . . . .or energy . . . .or (gasp)
Quality. The terminology you are so caught up in is not important, rather, the importance lies in
the concepts behind it. Coherent materialism can and must talk to the MoQ as much as possible and
the MoQ can and must talk back.
Motivation? In the sense of 'influence' then yes my post was meant to impress. In the sense of
'evoke a favourable reaction,' I think not. Have you ever known me to seek applause? Do you think I
would be here if that were my aim? This forum is for discussion of the MoQ and this thread (not
started by me) is entitled 'SUBJECT/OBJECT METAPHYSICS.' How much more relevant can I get? I put my
view concisely and properly because I firmly believe that the oppositional stance you adopt is
seriously misguided and is based upon a misunderstanding which needs exorcising if Pirsig's ideas
are going to have any effect upon mainstream philosophy. By all means disagree with me, but do not
question my motives unless you want a few similar questions thrown at you.
Contrary to your assertion, you are in more danger of scaring off people who think this might be
deep thinking than I, simply by implicitly perpetuating the myth that all other philosophy and
science is hot air. It seems that you are so fascinated by the horse that you didn't even notice the
cart as you canter cackling over the hill. The irony is intensified by the fact that it is actually
Pirsig's horse. To illustrate this; instead of politely nipping away to analyse Jonathan's essay,
you proudly proclaim that you haven't even bothered to read it!!! (What was that about motives?). A
'Pirsigian philosophologist,' well, well, irony heaped upon irony. Why does it scare you so much to
think that the MoQ is compatible with current scientific thinking? (What was that about motives?).
To answer you final question; Matter is a collection of patterns of value. It is not eliminated
except in a trivial sense in which all 'things' are eliminated. You might just as well eliminate my
chair and table, or my thoughts as I write this. You would be just as wrong to do so. The fact is
that they are useful terms invented by man to describe certain patterns of value, just as mind and
matter are useful terms invented by man for certain less specific patterns of value. The verdict is
yes and if that surprises you then you haven't understood a word I've said.
If you still refuse to even attempt to understand what I'm saying then I suggest we drop this
particular red herring and I will hope to continue to raise these points with those of a less
blinkered disposition. There are important things to be done and waffling on in a flaky mystical
fashion wastes time - although as the mystic denies the reality of time I don't suspect this
concerns him much.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
<mailto:struan@clara.net>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:48 BST