[MD] philosophology

[david buchanan]

dmb asks Marsha again:
Isn't it true that you subscribe to Bo's view on SOM, the view that Pirsig is so nicely smacking down in these quotes? (Which is their original and intended context.) Isn't a bit hypocritical to remind anyone but yourself?




> From: valkyr at att.net
> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:36:44 -0400
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] philosophology
> 
> 
> Hi dmb,
> 
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:20 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Marsha said:
> > Yes, it is good to be reminded of these two quotes again... 
> > 
> > 
> > dmb says:
> > Isn't it true that you subscribe to Bo's view on SOM, the view that Pirsig is so nicely smacking down in these quotes? Isn't a bit hypocritical to remind anyone but yourself?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known. SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ is not subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind. Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ."   (RMP, 'LILA's Child', Annotation 132)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "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, Pierce, 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 any thing 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." (RMP, 'LILA's Child', Annotation 133)
> 
> Marsha:
> Can you read?  The subject line says 'philosophology'.  Read again what Annotation 133 says about philosophology and try to understand RMP's words in that context.  Do you understand the word 'context'?  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 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