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

[X Acto]

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

John:
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.

Ron:
Well, their both rather similar, Pragmatism tends to ground itself in experience
and begins from a value perspective of usefullness while, from what I know about
scientific idealism, it doesent really go to that extent. Pirsig seems to be after
solutions.
I know, from my own experience, that when I am aware of something I was not aware
of before, suddenly it emerges so frequently in everyday life that I am in awe that
I never really paid any attention to it before. Suddenly examples of it are everywhere.

Thats why, I think Pragmatism is inviting in this regard, that meaning, in subconscious
ways draws us towards certain patterns.

What attracted me to Pragmatism was the emphasis on value and meaning, so that irregardless
of how one conceptualized that experience the meaning is what holds primacy.


> 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
>

John:
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.

Ron:
MoQ certainly makes a re-reading of biblical texts easier to understand
and you are right, it is a history of biological/social/intellectual struggle,
gosh, abraham appeals intellectually to god in the raizing of sodom and 
gomorrah, that it would be immoral to kill even one rightous person. In 
those cities social patterns had been defeated.
You bring up idolitry, the defining of the indefineable. the living word
the one that can not be spoken, smack of DQ. with the study of
ancient Greek philosophy, the new testament takes on an entirely
new meaning. Gnostic scriptures really emphasize this.
religious writtings take on an entirely new dimension of meaning in 
these contexts.

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

Ron:
Agree

John:
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.

Ron:
Interestingly, I recently had a conversation with a long time freind who became
born again just this past year, I had said that the belief in jesus as the christ
really did'nt have any bearing on the matter, he got huffy and proclaimed that 
belief in jesus as the christ, was the whole central theme. He said if you don't
believe that jesus lived,was the son of god, died and was resurrected then your
not a christian. I maintained that that was superflouse to the message, I said
that the ideas expressed held more value, whether or not jesus actually existed
was rather beside the point.
He could not wrap his head around the idea that When you adopt a Pragmatic theory of meaning,
objectively held truths fall to the side.