[MD] On silt and old tea.

Mon Aug 23 12:04:35 PDT 2010

Hi, Dave .

Yes, just as Mr pirsig did, you are moving up to the solid interpretation,
The idea is to be good.
I strongly agree on all developments here, especially on the
Perennial-issue.
As Huxley was my ever first love in philosophy, i was knocked of my shoes to
read Pirsig's comment in the C annotations on
the issue, i was truly astonisched by the fact that he did recognize the
Perennial tought Huxley was proposing and developing.

Yes , in fact , Perennial, congruent with all other philosophical entities
on some parts,as not in conflict with..
and thats why Pirsig agree's on the tought. If you read the coplestons
annotations closely , and especially the black parts , and the context's,
one should make the only possible conclusion, it is in fact what you
recognized in the annotations, THE IDEA IS TO BE GOOD? yes! as Pirsig moved
up to the solid interpretation of course.; one that is conclusive and
universal,
as where the Tao fails to conclude or to formulate, Pirsig did not fail to
conclude and to formulate, and you recognized this pattern, ....this lead to
Quality. Quality is Perennial, but it is no boundary nor definition,nor
attachment it's a basic property.

Damn , Dave , you are sharp.

I can agree on Krimel statement earlier on that Pirsig left the field open
in his books on the issue of the theory of evolution.
But i cannot agree on the critisism that this is a shortcoming of any kind,
Pirsig is not a specialist on the evolution of species
He never claimed to be , or intended to write books about it...
Strange , strangely to read in the annotations, later on, his conclusion on
evolution, and the possibility for evolution to evolve within itself,(not
sure as where i did read this, maybe in a paper Pirsig/ Ant)
But this is of the utmost importance, as an extensive Darwin/ Dawkins reader
, and as an evolutionist myself , i recognized
that this is about what Darwin concluded in the Origin of species By means
of Natural Selection, Pirsig is surprisingly congruent.
I credit krimel for his interest in "evolution" clearly he is not among the
40 percent creationists that are running around in the USA
(according to Dawkins, in the Greatest show on Earth, Evidence for
evolution) strange creationists! its difficult to expierience for me , as an
European sitting on a forum with a lot of Americans, before you are even
aware of it , the gospel is creeping in, ....
Do i need to say i dislike it? point for Krimel, and a second point added
for reading Dawkins , Krimel.
But criticise Pirsig for shortcomings on evolution, No...zero points.

The silt of tomorrow,....what a nice way of etching this in granite, Dave,
and you just did.
I was following a conversation Andre/Magnus yesterday i think, where Andre
was taking the point that we have to reinvent this every day, or about ,
Magnus did not agree, but i did , Andre is wright, we have to, he is doing
it , and you just did, and this is
Pirsigs lead,....stay on the path of Quality, this is the solid
interpretation.

The silt of tomorrow , ...yes it is the silt in our eye's,the silt in our
spirit, moving away from the silt , one of the best and most decent
proposals ever stated on this forum.

I 'm aware of the fact that i can and will learn from your postings , Dave,
they are added value to me and to the Moq.

thx , Adrie.

2010/8/23 david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>

>
> In the "Speed of Lighting" thread, Krimel said:
>
> Pirsig's real contribution could be taken as synthesizing Darwin and Lao
> Tsu. Much of my vitriol arises from the realization that he or at least his
> apologists don't quite seem to get either of them right.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Evolutionary Taoism? Okay. I guess that's roughly true the way it's roughly
> true to say Avatar is a synthesis of Star Trek Wars and Dances With Wolves.
> To suggest that your vitriol arises from a resistance to this notion isn't
> very plausible, however. I don't recall anyone ever even mentioning such a
> synthesis. If there was ever a struggle for its legitimacy in this forum, it
> snuck past me.
>
> This reminds of all the times you've complained about the MOQ not
> addressing some piece of evolutionary science or another. I want to push
> back against this kind of complaint. As I see it, that kind of criticism is
> mostly just a result of inappropriate expectations or a basic misconception
> about the scope and focus of the MOQ. In Lila, for example, traces the
> etymology of his central term all the way back into the proto-Indo-European
> language and finds that he is not saying anything new and that in fact it's
> the oldest idea known to man. In ZAMM he traces the history of philosophy
> all the way back to the pre-Socratics and finds that the discredited
> Sophists were already saying then what he is saying now. The scope is very,
> very broad and the idea is not to be newest, hippest thing since
> bellbottoms. The idea is to be good.
>
> "I would like not to cut any new channels of consciousness but simply dig
> deeper into old ones that have become silted in with the debris of thoughts
> grown stale and platitudes too often repeated. "What's new?" is an
> interesting and broadening eternal question, but one which, if pursued
> exclusively, results only in an endless parade of trivia and fashion, the
> silt of tomorrow. I would like, instead, to be concerned with the question
> "What is best?," a question which cuts deeply rather than broadly, a
> question whose answers tend to move the silt downstream. There are eras of
> human history in which the channels of thought have been too deeply cut and
> no change was possible, and nothing new ever happened, and "best" was a
> matter of dogma, but that is not the situation now. Now the stream of our
> common consciousness seems to be obliterating its own banks, losing its
> central direction and purpose, flooding the lowlands, disconnecting and
> isolating the highlands and to no particula
>  r purpose other than the wasteful fulfillment of its own internal
> momentum. Some channel deepening seems called for."
>
> To criticize the MOQ for its failure to address this or that recent
> development in science always strikes me as oddly inappropriate, like
> criticizing Gandhi because he was a Luddite who failed to anticipate
> facebook. Sure, in some fantasy it would be nice if Mark Twain had a twitter
> account but as a realistic way to assess their relative success or failure
> it's very much beside the point. It's not quite that silly to expect the MOQ
> to address everything Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett has written lately,
> but almost. I think it's pretty safe to say that Pirsig is perfectly aware
> of the fact that the theory of evolution continues to evolve. This MOQ isn't
> supposed to be the last word on the theory, it simply agrees the theory.
> Same with Taoism, actually. In ZAMM he says that his notion of Quality is
> nothing for Taoism. It agrees with Taoism but the purpose of the MOQ is to
> improve and expand our modes of rationality. And the use of everything from
> Taoism to the Sophists is a
>  imed at that. He's trying to deepen some very old, very silty channels, to
> freshen and revitalize some ancient, ancient stuff. I mean, think about the
> scope of the perennial philosophy, which says that all the world's great
> religions have an esoteric, mystical core and at that level they all agree
> with each other. That's how the MOQ can be a form of philosophical mysticism
> and agree with Taoism and agree with Zen Buddhism and agree with ... Well,
> you get the idea.
>
> The world's leading evolutionary biologist died today. He was replaced by a
> larger, stronger evolutionary biologist.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser