[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Mark, Marsha,

>> RMP:
>> "Some of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics:
>> Plotinus, Swedenborg, Loyola, Shankaracharya and many others. They share a
>> common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside language;
>> that language splits things up into parts while the true nature of reality
>> is undivided. Zen, which is a mystic religion, argues that the illusion of
>> dividedness can be overcome by meditation. The Native American Church
>> argues that peyote can force-feed a mystic understanding upon those who
>> were normally resistant to it,..." (LILA, ch 5)
>

Steve:
I think this bit relates to the "why isn't the MOQ more popular?"
question. As I understand it, the idea that reality has a true nature
was already out of style when Lila came out. Pirsig was offering a fix
for metaphysics when philosophy had already become anti-metaphysical.
The question of the true nature of reality was no longer "live."
Post-pragmatism in the US and post-existentialism in Europe,
philosophers were no longer so inclined to think of reality as the
sort of thing that has a true nature that needs to be discovered. The
mystic's complaint that language can never capture the true nature of
reality doesn't resonate with anyone who doesn't see language as
having that goal to begin with. Language doesn't _fail_ at capturing
the true nature of reality if that was never the function of language.

Best,
Steve