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

Tue Jul 21 13:04:09 PDT 2009

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:51 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
> John, Louise, Matt,
> I agree, I think Pirsig likes to keep to the empirical side of the path
> in the tradition of the pragmatists.

Here's the interesting tidbit of reasoning that occured to me reading Lila
Chap 29 - Pirsig was struck hard by the coincidence of William James being
the godfather of William Jame's Siddis and that fact weighed heavily enough
upon him to actually spend the time to really get to know James's thought.
 Once you have a lot of time invested in a philosopher's thinking, you tend
to stick with it.  That and James was popular - another contradiction of MoQ
morality.

Now we've all been struck at one time or another by such synchronicities,
and can attest to their power.  But there is a sort of implication in them
of some sort of higher power engineering these coincidental things to embue
them with extra meaning and aiming them at us.  There is certainly no sort
of empirical basis for granting them the power they have, so it is a piece
of subtle irony, I'd say, for Pirsig to pick the side of pragmatism over
idealism based upon idealistic reasoning as opposed to pragmatic.

> 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
>

I think I'm in harmony with where you're coming from Ron.  Let me describe
my impure experience as purely as I can.

I had my own synchronicitious event when I went to a bible study and found
Neal Cassady's grandson there, right after I read about Neal. Cosmic dude.
 I was sure it meant something.

But going back to the bible with the MoQ in hand was far different than
having it dogmatically shoved down my throat.  Did you know that the entire
structure of biblical teaching is a profound lesson in the conflict between
the  dynamic and the static?  The whole thing with the people of Israel was
idolatry - idols are the fixed and static lessons that a culture has
evolved. Centuries of conflict over this issue.  And then Christ ends up
being crucified by the forces of static religion.  But wait, there's more.
 He comes back, and then says he must go because its better that way.  Huh?
 Yes, it's better for his followers to pay heed to an internal and eternal
"spirit" than it is to follow another person.

What an anti-religious diatribe the whole book is, when considered from a
higher context.

But honestly, that experience of trying to get Christians to find a deeper
meaning in their religion never really went anywhere because as much as
Pirsigians may hate bible babble, bible babblers hate anything that doesn't
reify the dogma,  just as much.  Well not all.  Some see advancing truth as
interesting and valuable, and you know what happens when they do this?
 Every time?  They go to their preacher, their pastor, their priest, and
they take these new insights and get into arguments and it causes dissension
and the threat of breakup and it is determined for the good of the whole,
the dissenters must be excluded.   Or forced to drink poison.  Or crucified.

It's an old story.  One that hopefully "we" are above, now that we have
scaled the highest peaks of intellectual excellence.

Yay us.

John

>
>
>
>
>
> ----- 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>