[MD] John's Reading of Absolute Idealism Confirmed by Bob

[X Acto]

John, Louise, Matt,
I agree, I think Pirsig likes to keep to the empirical side of the path
in the tradition of the pragmatists. What he fears in using those terms
of spirituality is demonstrated on the discuss everyday. misinterpreations
and quotes out of context. they all point to a mystic expereince but it
seems the labels simply get in the way. The preconceptions and rationalism
 associated with those terms can spiral out of control in associated meaning.
Making the comprehension of the core understanding and it's conveyance
all the more difficult.
The drive of the MoQ to me, was in his effort to understand cultural values without
the spectre of cultural bias. to understand the nessessities and the mistakes of
what and why we value the patterns we do as human beings.
In this way one may understand the value of religion without actually being religious
and we can understand the value of objectivism without being an objectivist.

-Ron






----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:43:48 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] John's Reading of Absolute Idealism Confirmed by Bob


John, Louise,

I think you and Louise are right--I don't see how someone 
can pay homage to both William James' "Will to Believe" and 
be, specifically, anti-theistic.  And if you reject the "Will to 
Believe," I'm not sure what kind of pragmatist you are.

We can tease apart the language and labels in many ways, 
but I've never been able to figure--apart from personal 
reasons--the _philosophical_ justification for the ruling out 
of God-talk.  Most prominent Pirsig-interpreters, not to 
mention Pirsig, have been anti-theistic (though Pirsig is 
typically more measured).  But I don't get it.  Granted, I 
don't get God-talk either, but that's the point--philosophically 
speaking, using God-talk, or Buddha-talk, or Nature-talk, or 
Plato-talk, or Yeats-talk: they should all be on a 
philosophical par, each its own finger pointing at the moon.

For the most part, Pirsig and Pirsig-interpreters reserve 
their spite for social institutions/incarnations like organized 
religion and the like.  In this sense, I think we can all be 
anti-clerical.  But there are times when the reaction seems 
to be emitting from a non-Pirsigian place.

Matt

She asks a question of me, that I can't answer.  But since you all are here
> and so into Pirsig, it's one I hope you can answer.  I found way more cant
> than I was expecting and especially a marked detestation for "Spirit" or
> "spiritual" or any of those terms.
> 
> Perfectly valid terms when trying to define the ineffable, and perhaps
> that's the problem.  But still.  What came across was somebody with a real
> grudge, and I wonder if anyone here can answer Lu's question.
> 
> I sure cant
> 
> 
> John the befuddled husband
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Louise Pryor <bypryordesign at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > John Carl said:
> >
> > > but then one thing I gleaned from the
> > > reading is the absolute detestation of any terminology smacking of
> > theism,
> > > so I certainly won't be making THAT mistake.
> >
> >
> > Lu wonders:
> > I don't really understand why theistic terminology is so detestable. I
> > mean,
> > I understand the rejection of "religion", or religious terminology, but it
> > seems that too often the baby is thrown out with the bath water.
> >
> > Lu
> > (mostly quiet, but still listening...)

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
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/