[MD] What is SOM?

Fri Aug 22 13:46:24 PDT 2008

At 04:21 PM 8/22/2008, you wrote:

>Marsha said to Dave:
>This is absolutely beautiful!!!
>
>dmb says:
>Yes, it is beautiful and I know why. Because its 
>so full of quotes. Its 92% Pirsig and he's an excellent writer.

He is, isn't he.

>But I'll take credit for stringing them together like a good student.

You did more than that.  You presented an 
excellent case.  It was wonderful to read.  Makes 
me want to read ZMM again. And, I'm so curious to 
read Bo's response.  Maybe there won't be one.

I suppose we'll lose you soon to fall classes.  A big loss!

Marsha

>And thanks!
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> > At 02:36 PM 8/22/2008, you wrote:
> >
> >>dmb said to Bo:
> >>It seems to me that you must be suffering from a
> >>very odd definition of "metaphysics" and
> >>"intellect". You seem to think the MOQ is
> >>reality itself rather than words about reality
> >>and so you are altering the MOQ so that it is
> >>construed as essentialism rather than
> >>philosophical mysticism, which is a vigorous form of anti-essentialism.
> >>
> >>Bo replied:
> >>Yes if that is essentialism I'm very much so,
> >>but because DQ is part and parcel of the MOQ I
> >>wonder how you avoid being a Quality
> >>essentialist too ...  without resorting to the
> >>Quality//DQ/SQ variety that even Pirsig finally had to abandon.
> >>
> >>dmb says:
> >>Pirsig's Quality is opposed to Plato's Quality
> >>precisely because it is not an essence. We can
> >>find this anti-essentialist move in what I take
> >>to be the philosophical and dramatic climaxes of ZAMM....
> >>
> >>But why? Phædrus wondered. Why destroy areté?
> >>And no sooner had he asked the question than the
> >>answer came to him. Plato hadn't tried to
> >>destroy areté. He had encapsulated it; made a
> >>permanent, fixed Idea out of it; had converted
> >>it to a rigid, immobile Immortal Truth. He made
> >>areté the Good, the highest form, the highest
> >>Idea of all. It was subordinate only to Truth
> >>itself, in a synthesis of all that had gone before.
> >>
> >>That was why the Quality that Phædrus had
> >>arrived at in the classroom had seemed so close
> >>to Plato's Good. Plato's Good was taken from the
> >>rhetoricians. Phædrus searched, but could find
> >>no previous cosmologists who had talked about
> >>the Good. That was from the Sophists. The
> >>difference was that Plato's Good was a fixed and
> >>eternal and unmoving Idea, whereas for the
> >>rhetoricians it was not an Idea at all. The Good
> >>was not a form of reality. It was reality
> >>itself, ever changing, ultimately unknowable 
> in any kind of fixed, rigid way.
> >>
> >>.....................
> >>
> >>
> >>What is good, Phædrus, and what is not
> >>good...need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
> >>
> >>It is what he was saying months before in the
> >>classroom in Montana, a message Plato and every
> >>dialectician since him had missed, since they
> >>all sought to define the Good in its
> >>intellectual relation to things. But what he
> >>sees now is how far he has come from that. He is
> >>doing the same bad things himself. His original
> >>goal was to keep Quality undefined, but in the
> >>process of battling against the dialecticians he
> >>has made statements, and each statement has been
> >>a brick in a wall of definition he himself has
> >>been building around Quality. Any attempt to
> >>develop an organized reason around an undefined
> >>quality defeats its own purpose. The
> >>organization of the reason itself defeats the
> >>quality. Everything he has been doing has 
> been a fool's mission to begin with.
> >>
> >>On the third day he turns a corner at an
> >>intersection of unknown streets and his vision
> >>blanks out. When it returns he is lying on the
> >>sidewalk, people moving around him as if he were
> >>not there. He gets up wearily and mercilessly
> >>drives his thoughts to remember the way back to
> >>the apartment. They are slowing down. Slowing
> >>down. This is about the time he and Chris try to
> >>find the sellers of bunk beds for the children
> >>to sleep in. After that he does not leave the apartment.
> >>
> >>He stares at the wall in a cross-legged position
> >>upon a quilted blanket on the floor of a bedless
> >>bedroom. All bridges have been burned. There is
> >>no way back. And now there is no way forward either.
> >>
> >>For three days and three nights, Phædrus stares
> >>at the wall of the bedroom, his thoughts moving
> >>neither forward nor backward, staying only at
> >>the instant. His wife asks if he is sick, and he
> >>does not answer. His wife becomes angry, but
> >>Phædrus listens without responding. He is aware
> >>of what she says but is no longer able to feel
> >>any urgency about it. Not only are his thoughts
> >>slowing down, but his desires too. And they slow
> >>and slow, as if gaining an imponderable mass. So
> >>heavy, so tired, but no sleep comes. He feels
> >>like a giant, a million miles tall. He feels
> >>himself extending into the universe with no limit.
> >>
> >>He begins to discard things, encumbrances that
> >>he has carried with him all his life. He tells
> >>his wife to leave with the children, to consider
> >>themselves separated. Fear of loathsomeness and
> >>shame disappear when his urine flows not
> >>deliberately but naturally on the floor of the
> >>room. Fear of pain, the pain of the martyrs is
> >>overcome when cigarettes burn not deliberately
> >>but naturally down into his fingers until they
> >>are extinguished by blisters formed by their own
> >>heat. His wife sees his injured hands and the
> >>urine on the floor and calls for help.
> >>
> >>But before help comes, slowly, imperceptibly at
> >>first, the entire consciousness of Phædrus
> >>begins to come apart -- to dissolve and fade
> >>away. Then gradually he no longer wonders what
> >>will happen next. He knows what will happen
> >>next, and tears flow for his family and for
> >>himself and for this world. A fragment comes and
> >>lingers from an old Christian hymn, "You've got
> >>to cross that lonesome valley." It carries him
> >>forward. "You've got to cross it by yourself."
> >>It seems a Western hymn that belongs out in Montana.
> >>
> >>"No one else can cross it for you," it says. It
> >>seems to suggest something beyond. "You've got to cross it by yourself."
> >>
> >>He crosses a lonesome valley, out of the mythos,
> >>and emerges as if from a dream, seeing that his
> >>whole consciousness, the mythos, has been a
> >>dream and no one's dream but his own, a dream he
> >>must now sustain of his own efforts. Then even
> >>"he" disappears and only the dream of himself remains with himself in it.
> >>
> >>And the Quality, the areté he has fought so hard
> >>for, has sacrificed for, has never betrayed, but
> >>in all that time has never once understood, now
> >>makes itself clear to him and his soul is at rest.
> >>
> >>dmb continues:
> >>We see this same paradox in LILA, where Pirsig
> >>says that philosophical mystics have
> >>historically shared, "a common belief that the
> >>fundamental nature of reality is outside of
> >>language; that language splits things up into
> >>parts while the true nature of reality is
> >>undivided". He says, "Historically mystics have
> >>claimed that for a true understanding of reality
> >>metaphysics is too 'scientific'. Metaphysics is
> >>not reality. Metaphysics is NAMES about
> >>reality." He says, "The central reality of
> >>mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
> >>'Quality' in his first book, is not a
> >>metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't have
> >>to be defined. You understand it without
> >>definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a
> >>direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions".
> >>
> >>Let me put it this way, old friend. Dynamic
> >>Quality itself is reality but the MOQ is not
> >>reality. It is names about reality, a set of
> >>intellectual static patterns that describe
> >>reality with definitions and concepts. Like its
> >>rival, the MOQ is a product of that analytic
> >>knife. In other words, the deconstructive
> >>anti-essentialist moves against SOM have to be
> >>applied to the MOQ too. Its categories and
> >>concepts are not to be confused with the primary
> >>empirical reality from which they are derived
> >>any more than SOM's categories and concepts. I
> >>mean, Pirsig is consistently anti-essentialist
> >>even with respect to his own metaphysical
> >>system. Otherwise, the MOQ would be exempted
> >>from the art gallery analogy and the whole thing
> >>would otherwise be full of holes.
> >>
> >>I think this is what gives rise to your SOLAQI.
> >>You're trying to solve problems that don't
> >>really exist in the MOQ. The problems are a
> >>product of your essentialist misinterpretation
> >>of the MOQ. Get rid of the essentialism and the problems will evaporate.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > .
> > .
> >
> > Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
> > .
> > .
> >
> > 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/
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn 
>how to burn a DVD with Windows®.
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/
>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/

.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
. 