From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Mar 01 2004 - 15:36:16 GMT
Bo
I've been away for a week and was surprised to read this final note of
yours. For what it's worth, if you are still subscribed or still reading
the posts on the web I'd like to say that, to whatever extent I have
influenced your decision to stop posting, my intention was only to try
to get you to clarify your ideas and ultimately to encourage you to
develop them as *your own* original contribution to philosophy.
Admittedly, it probably doesn't seem like that is what I was intending
to do and the reason for this is that I've also been defending my own
aim of trying to bring clarity to an understanding of the MOQ based on
*all of* Pirsig's writing, including the many statements made without
the narrative he uses in his novels. I think you have tried to build on
an intuitive grasp of what the pre-treatment (!) "Phaedrus" in ZMM
thought and wrote, and who am I to say whether you are right or wrong in
this respect?
Where we depart on different routes from his original insight is that I
think the "annotating Pirsig" presents a maturity of thought and
provides clarity to the metaphysics he develops in his two published
novels whereas you think he loses the magnitude of the original insight.
What I object to about the route you have taken is that you dismiss
two-thirds of Pirsig's writing and refer to the rest as "the proper MOQ"
which you think nobody except you and Mati understands. I think this
claim adds nothing to your argument and often prevents those of us who
want to explore the other two-thirds of Pirsig's writing from having a
meaningful debate with you.
That said, I have made an effort to understand your ideas but (as you
know) believe that they are not as good as Pirsig's MOQ for reasons
stated exhaustively over the past few months. Aside from anything else,
I have a personal appreciation for the contribution of Eastern
philosophy to an understanding of my own experience, and this body of
knowledge is a bit of a "platypus" within your theory - as well as being
central to the MOQ. I also think a lack of clarity in your theory has
weighed against you and I think this has happened because you seem to
have spent more time digging out ambiguities in Pirsig's work to prove
that SOLAQI is "the proper MOQ" than constructing your interpretation
more thoroughly.
Finally, I think of SOLAQI as *your* contribution to philosophy *based
on* some of Robert Pirsig's ideas, and I think that is something to be
proud of.
Take care
Paul
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 01 2004 - 15:44:39 GMT