From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 17 2004 - 14:29:23 BST
Matt said: I make sense of
it is as foundationalism. Find the bottom and build up from there, which I
would think is why Pirsig falls under it with his reduction to Quality, then
DQ/SQ, then the fourfold SQ split, on and on.
DM: This seems to get Pirsig wrong and why he escapes Cartesianism-type
search for a foundation. He gives us DQ of course but this looks nothing
like anything that has ever been put forward as a foundation unless you can
see no difference between western and eastern thought. So that Quality is
something irreducable, a creative nothing, open to our differentiations
but undifferentiated itself. Like Heidegger's Being, quality or DQ is not
something that can be reached by a stripping away of illusions or
appearances.
Appearance is rather the richest of experiences, for it to emerge a
gathering
is required. Heidegger particularly refers to language, but for Pirsig
there are all the levels required for mankind to open a space in which DQ
can emerge.
Can we recognise DQ? Well a play of appearance and absense is required.
So that without SOM we could not have MOQ. Perhaps also vice versa.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 00:34:17 BST