[MD] Another parallel

Thu Jul 16 13:18:14 PDT 2009

I'm trying.  

>
> Matt,
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Matt Kundert <
> pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> And no, I don't think I'm confident about "spotting
>> contradictions," though I do have lingering feelings from my
>> days of exclusive involvement with Pirsig that there were
>> "tensions," tensions being a term of art, I suppose, that
>> might mean two positions that seemingly pull in opposite
>> ways.
>
>
> John]
>
> First of all, I like your style.  I appreciate your words.  Much of what
> you say resonates with me.  You communicate in a free-flowing style that
> gets my juices flowing and I'd like to return the favor if I can.
>
> "Two positions seemingly pulling in opposite directions"  seems to be a
> recurring theme in human discourse, doesn't it.  Bilateral orientation is
> evidently the way humans are constructed and hypothetically the way humans
> think.  Quality is meaningless without choice and choice is meaningless when
> there's only one way to go.  You need at least two just to establish
> relationship and co-meaning of anything.
>
> I'm like Marsha in that I'm not a complainer, but I am a contrarian.  If
> "the everybody" says "this is the only way to go" then my brain just
> naturally asks why and starts looking for the flip side.  Relatively new to
> the philosophology game, I haven't been able to articulate the particulate
>  that I see as "the flip side" to the current debates on MD, but I'm getting
> there.  Your posting here is the closest I've felt so far, at least,
> philosophocologically,  to resonation with my particulation - Royce's
>  Idealism.
>
> Matt]
>
> And see how soft I put that?  "Seemingly"?  Those words
> are put there on purpose, because while I am, as the
> bearer of my brain, pretty confident I have vague feelings
> of tension regarding Pirsig's "system," I am not confident
> that they are really there,
>
> John]
>
> Spoken as a true philosopher.  Socrates would be proud.  You could even
> define the difference between philosophy and philosophology in this way:
>  Philosophologists are always certain about their subject, and philosophers
> almost never are.
>
> See how I softened my "never" there?  You can tell which side I'm on with
> that one, eh?
>
>
>
> Matt]
>
> which is why I was trying to elicit
> better articulation from others to assuage my doubt.
>
> --I just like reading good and interesting writings, and
> I was trying to prompt some.  I think there might be good
> work to be done by people interested in this area and I'd
> be interested to audit it.
> John]
>
> Well I don't know about "better", but I promise "different" - which can
> often lead to "good" through the synthetic way.
>
> I have been coming to, and am about to reach, the firm conclusion that
> Jamesian Pragmatism is NOT the way to go for the MoQ.  William James and
> Josiah Royce conducted a lifelong dialogue between Pragmatism and Idealism,
> and in every social, static-latching meaningful way, James won, Royce lost.
>  Lost in obscurity, lost in influence, lost in all but the most esoteric
> memory.  Till lately, that is.  He sure was not prominently known when
> Pirsig was searching for some academic static latchment for his
> philosophical undertakings.  And probably on the surface, if you're looking
> for a way to attach to American Philosophical Movement, you don't want to
> attach to dangly bit that has already been cut off, do you?
>
> Unless, that which has been cut off is of higher, better quality and thus
> the only reason you're ignoring it is that you gain more socially by going
> with the academic flow.
>
> In other words, immoral reasonings...
>

> Matt]
>
>
>
>>
>> So let me state again--I _want_ the interpretations that
>> iron out passage A and passage B in tandem.  I'm just
>> looking for them.  I like reading inventive strings of words
>
> articulating illuminating minds doing motivated work.
>>
>

John]

yeah, well, you and me both buddy.  Who doesn't?

>
>> Matt
>>
>> p.s.  I mean, really, I try hard to not impute too directly to
>> you the view that you think Pirsig is infallible, but it
>> becomes difficult sometimes.  I like Pirsig quite a bit, but
>> you make it hard.  That's typically why I fly away
>> occasionally--you make it difficult for me to enjoy the
>> penetration of Pirsig's mind because of your method of
>> reading (which is to say "writing to the MD").
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
>> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
>> 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/
>

-- 
------------
There are differing interpretations of Reality, some are just better than
others, that's all.
------------
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/

________________________________

From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:13:22 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel