[MD] to dmb

[MarshaV]

dmb,

Maybe you think that because my interest in the MoQ is from an Buddhist/Eastern point-of-view and not your preferred American philosophical perspective it is an affront on you. You've described it as a relentless campaign against James?   It isn't, not at all.  I just don't find William James that interesting.  I did enjoy his biography, and as I stated, think he was an open-minded and dynamic thinker for his time, but other than that I'm only mildly interested.  I see the MoQ as a bridge between Western Science and Eastern Wisdom, and it is that interest that I will follow.  And because we all may not have a spontaneous enlightenment experience, I think the Eastern technique of meditation (analytic and contemplative) is the best way to break down the subject-object habit.  A habit of dualistic thinking that has been built culturally into our perspectives over many millenniums and individually since we were infants. 

The words I use 'relative' and 'reify,' and explanations such as 'patterns are ever-changing' are commonly used in explaining the difference between conventional truths (sq) and Ultimate Truth (DQ).  There is a relationship between the MoQ and Buddhism, and I do not think my pursuing it poses any threat to the MoQ.  As RMP has clearly stated, the MoQ is not confined within any one philosophic tradition.  The last paragraph in your post seems to be unreasonable and exaggerated name-calling because I will not follow your lead.  Please do not take it personally.  It may be that there is a good relationship between Contemporary Pragmatism/Radical Empiricism and the MoQ, and between Buddhist philosophy and the MoQ, with something to be gained from both approaches.  

Thank you for reading.


Marsha 
 
 
 

On Dec 5, 2010, at 5:11 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> MOQers:
> Marsha seems to think that denigrating William James is a good way to defend Pirsig's MOQ. She seems to think that James is obsolete, that he is only "historically" interesting. Nothing could be further from the truth and all the evidence is against her. The evidence is plain, explicit and unequivocal. Everything needed to see this can be found in the last 3 or 4 pages of chapter 29. There, Pirsig says:
> 
> "...But to Phaedrus it seemed that James's generalizations were heading toward something very similar to the Metaphysics of Quality. This could, of course, be the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect', where Phaedrus' own intellectual immune system was selecting those aspects of James' philosophy that fit the MOQ and ignoring those that didn't. But he didn't think so. Everywhere he read it seemed as though he was seeing fits and matches that not amount of selective reading could contrive." (p. 363)
> 
> "James said, 'Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it.' He said, 'The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief.' TRUTH IS A SPECIES OF GOOD. That was right on. That was EXACTLY what is meant by the MOQ. Truth is a static intellectual pattern WITHIN a larger entity called Quality." (p. 363-4. Emphasis is Pirsig's in the original.)
> 
> "...James had condensed this description [of radical empiricism] to a single sentence. 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." (p. 365)
> 
> "The Metaphysics of Quality is a continuation of the mainstream of twentieth century American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which says the test of the true is the good." (p. 366)
> 
> 
> How much selective reading would it take to ignore this and construe James's thought as irrelevant, obsolete or at odds with Pirsig's?
> 
> 
> How could the similarities between James and Pirsig be any clearer or more straightforward? 
> 
> Marsha's relentless campaign against James is wholly indefensible and the evidence against her is about as powerful and abundant as these things ever get. Her willful disregard of the evidence and her constant evasions are downright obscene. The whole campaign seems to be carefully calculated to arouse disgust and contempt. And she wages this dishonest attack on the core of Pirsig's work in order to maintain her foolish solipsism, relativism and nihilism. This is intellectual vacuous and morally outrageous. It's also not productive, helpful or fun.


 
___