[MD] Julian Baggini Interview with Pirsig

[David M]

Hi Folks

Correction to below, Cupitt's book is on Heidegger
my brain slipped.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Julian Baggini Interview with Pirsig


DMB

Brief initial thought, look at Heidegger's idea of Care
and compare to Pirsig's views on value. Being and Time simply
tries to create a language to discuss experience in non-SOM terms,
Heidegger's idea of Being  looks very similar to DQ, an idea he
tries to recover from ontic (read SQ) only thinking. A little book by
Don Cupitt called Being tries to explain that Pirsig has turned Being
into Be(com)ing.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Julian Baggini Interview with Pirsig


> David M and Matt:
>
> David M said to DMB
>>That sounds a fair appraisal to me.
>>When you go to school, take a look at phenomenology
>>post-Heidegger, maybe start with Merleau-Ponty because
>>there are close connections between Pirsig and
>>phenomenological attempts to describe experience as it
>>is and without SOM assumptions. Pirsig can offer a
>>good map, the phenomenologists have been exploring
>>the territory without its help. See some of the phenomenology
>>stuff here for example: http://consc.net/people.html#causation
>
> dmb says:
> I wonder if you can say something specific about that connection. You've
> made this sort of suggestion several times, but its always quite vague.
> Don't get me wrong. There's no reason to think Pirsig's work can't be
> compared to or at least contrasted with other Western thinkers. But my own
> brief investigations in that direction haven't been very encouraging. And
> it
> seems there is a certain tension between the philosophological wish to
> locate the MOQ within the history of philosophy and the ability of our
> resident philosophologists to fulfill these hopes. I mean, you and Matt
> and
> several other posters have the kind of background for this sort of map
> reading, but it seems nobody is doing it. Why is that? Around here,
> instead
> of presenting illuminating comparisions we tend to get various attempts to
> mix the MOQ with hostile and anti-thetical ideas. As I understand it, the
> MOQ doesn't mix with the dogmas of theistic religion nor postmodernism
> nihilism.
>
> And why is it that nobody wants to follow Pirsig's clues and compare the
> MOQ
> to Plotinus, Lao Tsu or Northrop. A good look at William James and the MOQ
> would probably be helpful too. If I may toot my own horn, I've tried to
> bring comparable thinkers and ideas to the table about a gazillion times
> with lots of quotes and detailed explanations. But the philosophologist
> among us seem to trade in names, labels and lots of arbitrary categories,
> none of which means anything to those of us who aren't philosophologically
> minded. It sure would be nice to see some coherent and detailed
> explanations
> from someone who really knows the history of philosophy. It sure would be
> nice to see some appropriate and relevant comparisons, to see some real
> connections instead of what we usually see around here, which is the
> cramming of sqare pegs into round holes and other forms of intellectual
> vandalism.
>
> Don't get wrong, Dave. I know you were just trying to encourage me and
> point
> in a helpful direction. Its just that I'm frustrated by the general lack
> of
> substance and relevance in the philosophological approach to things. So
> far,
> in this forum, I don't think anyone has actually demonstrated the value of
> this approach. As we all saw in the interview with JB and in my
> months-long
> discussion with Matt, philosophology seems to be the way to go if one's
> point and purpose is to avoid the substance of the matter at all costs.
> Maybe that's why Baggini didn't bother to ask Pirsig how his MOQ compared
> to
> Plotinus, Northrop or Lao Tsu, because that would have brought him
> dangerously close to a meaningful conversation, God forbid,  about
> Pirsig's
> ideas.
>
> Thanks,
> dmb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/