[MD] John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01

[MarshaV]

Greetings Bo,

Here is the first sentence from Wikipedia's 'idealism':

     Idealism is the philosophical theory that maintains
     that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind
     or ideas. It holds that the so-called external or 
     "real world" is inseparable from mind, consciousness,
     or perception.

I am not an idealist according to this definition.  In my own case, this is
not what I think.  Whatever exists external to human minds is divided,
abstracted and static patterns of value are applied to the experience, which
creates the illusion of self and objects.  This is not a denial of an
external reality, but a denial of the Absolute Truth of our conceptual
interpretation of external reality. The Ultimate Nature of Reality is not
knowable by minds, it is, though, experienced.  
 
Does this make more sense?

Marsha





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
skutvik at online.no
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:59 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01

John. Marsha, All

23 July. John said:

> I really like the way RMP ripped into Idealism in that bold,
> devil-take-the-hindmost, stream-of-consciousness way.    For a
> successful author with aspirations of deep and lasting intellectual
> latching, it was a risky, generous and open-hearted expression of
> sharing and caring.

Who are you speaking to above about RMP "ripping into idealism"? 
Phaedrus of ZAMM did so (if it means reject idealism) in the same 
"sitting" as he rejected materialism  (the two horns dilemma)  

The other day (July 22) Marsha brought the exchange between Pirsig 
and Dan Glover about the disastrous 102 annotation where Dan 
correctly points to P's rejection of SOM's subjective "horn" (after having 
spent a long time rejecting the objective)
 
    > DG:
    > You mention philosophic idealism in Zen and the Art of
    > Motorcycle Maintenance during your refutation of scientific
    > materialism (Chapter 19) but you reject it as "too far fetched." Do
you
    > feel that's why so few people understand it?

    > RMP:
    > It seems outside "common sense," so most people don't believe it.
    > But I believe it was the dominant school of philosophical thought in
    > England during the Victorian period.

See, Pirsig is no longer as tough on idealism (subjectivism) as P. of 
ZAMM was and this is the problem that the MOQ have been hampered 
by since LILA's publication. Pirsig has let go of the deadly grip that 
Phaedrus had on SOM by declaring SOM a Quality's fall-out. Now 
suddenly idealism is a way to understand the MOQ! Argh!!! 

Why didn't he understand that letting subjectivism act as closer to 
MOQ was letting SOM in by the back door. But those who hadn't 
understood the first thing of the MOQ  was happy, here was the 
"handle" whereby it could be aligned with "mysticism". A place SOM is 
overjoyed to relegate all those who don't like its materialism. There they 
are safely inside the fold..

And Jeez, "common sense" isn't SOM's hallmark, it has for centuries 
produced paradoxes that flies in the face of common sense . It's the 
MOQ that reintroduces common sense, so something outside it is 
outside the MOQ

Bodvar 




  
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/