[MD] Problems with the Academic Approach

[Horse]

Hi Platt

On 17/04/2010 21:40, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> In answer to your question, 1) I don't ignore everything he says, and 2) I
> agree with his statement that "The MOQ is in opposition to subject-object
> metaphysics."
>    
Note that he doesn't say that the intellectual level and SOM are the 
same thing.
> All one has to do is read chapters 22 and 24 of Lila where Pirsig savages
> SOM which he specifically identifies as the intellectual level.
>    

Nonsense. Pirsig repeatedly refutes this position and does so in Notes 
129, 131 and 133 of Lila's Child. You continue to ignore him.
> I know academics and other self-appointed intellectuals don't like to hear
> that their mindset "was screwing everything up," and no doubt his
> stinging rebuke of the way they have mismanaged society has caused
> his work to be largely ignored in SOM universities. His endorsement of
> capitalism over socialism only serves to strengthened the wall of
> immunity against him erected by the professorial elites.
>    

As Dave said, to paraphrase, seen in the bigger picture this is just not so.

> Finally, I appreciate your citing note 133 in Lila's Child in which Pirsig
> makes reference to my and Bo's "brilliant thinking."  :-)
>
>    

To put the conversation into context:

Platt:
So, I fully agree with Bo’s insight that the SOM and the intellectual 
level are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to avoid 
losing it and sinking back to “anything goes” irrationalism or a 
“because God says so” mentality, we need to recognize its vulnerability
to attacks from academic philosophers, social do-gooders, spiritual 
evangelists, and its own internal paradoxes. To that end, the MOQ is the 
best S/O answer I’ve found yet.

Pirsig:
I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is obviously 
not Platt’s intention. It is like saying that science is really a form 
of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has the effect 
dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ is in
opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of 
that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have read that 
the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, James, Peirce, 
Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even though these
people are not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of 
comparison is what I have meant by the term, “philosophology.” It is 
done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but 
only to classify it so that they don’t have to see it as
anything new. God knows the MOQ has never had two better friends than Bo 
and Platt, so this is no criticism of their otherwise brilliant 
thinking. It’s just that I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ 
itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it opposes.

So not only does Pirsig think you're undermining the MoQ, he also says 
that you are effectively dismissing the MoQ and practising 
philosophology. And for good measure, he sees what you are proposing as 
"lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this path of 
subordinating it to that which it opposes".

Interesting that you missed these.

Cheers

Horse

-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson