From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 18:16:36 GMT
Dan, Matt, Ant and All. (Platt & Scott mentioned)
On 3 Jan. you wrote:
Bo said prev.
> > >We know what philosophers Pirsig refers to in his work and (your)
> > >Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger are not among them. And if
> > >existentialism can be said to be a parallel or forerunner for the
> > >MOQ ...maybe?
Matt said:
> >Pirsig does refer flatteringly to Whitehead in his reference to Whitehead's
> >"dim apprehension" and I thought Pirsig referenced Bergson once (possibly
> >in his line-up of philosophers that other people said he sounded like).
Ant:
> >I also thought Pirsig made a direct reference to Bergson but it isn’t in
> >ZMM, SODV or LILA.
Dan says:
> Robert Pirsig mentions Bergson in Lila's Child, note #126:
> Pirsig:
> "I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is
> obviously not Platt’s intention. It is like saying that science is
> really a form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has
> the effect dismissing science as really not very important. The
> MOQ is in opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it
> is a part of that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal.
> I have read that the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle,
> Plotinus, Hegel, James, Peirce, Nieztsche, Bergson, and many
> others even though these people are not held to be saying the same
> as each other. This kind of comparison is what I have meant by the
> term, “philosophology.” It is done by people who are not seeking
> to understand what is written but only to classify it so that they
> don’t have to see it as any thing new. God knows, the MOQ has
> never had two better friends than Bo and Platt, so this is no
> criticism of their otherwise brilliant thinking. It’s just that I
> see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this
> path of subordinating it to that which it opposes."
I don't have "The Child" with me here (Dan has now informed us)
but it looks like Platt speaking about science as a modern myth.
Here I agree with Pirsig, but can't understand his putting me in with
those who wants ...TO SUBORDINATE THE MOQ TO WHAT IT
OPPOSES. (Scott is the real sinner here ;-))
For instance, Nietzsche may be seen as a "Phaedrus" who arrived
at the void beyond the mind/mater edge, but never made it back.
Such a comparison does not diminish Pirsig's fantastic
achievement of making the return trip from where he had seen the
SOM myth from the "outside".
Likewise regarding Charles Peirce who made his "sign"
metaphysics in the early twentieth century ('sign' is easily
converted into 'value') which he developed to the "trinity" stage of
the MOQ (in ZMM). This does not detract one iota from Pirsig's
accomplishment.
Regarding Plato and Aristotle there can't be anyone who have
compared them to Pirsig, they were after all the very instigators of
the SOM! James, Whitehead and Northrop made a lot of valid
observations about SOM's shortcomings and maybe a few
attempts to escape it, but made no real progress.
IMO
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 07:57:37 GMT