[MD] philosophology

[david buchanan]

dmb says:

Yes, it is good to be reminded of what these two quotes are actually about, rather than some weird distortion that   Marsha wants to impose on them. 


Platt said:
After all, the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning.



Pirsig replied:
"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)



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."


dmb says:

That's the view being politely smacked down by Pirsig: "Bo’s insight that the SOM and the intellectual level are one and the same". Isn't that the view you subscribe to, Marsha? As Horse pointed out to Platt, "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'." Doesn't this same exact criticism apply to you also, Marsha? So why are you posting criticism of your own stance? 


As Pirsig says, philosophology "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". He's talking talking you, Marsha. You are never, ever "seeking to understand what is written". 


As i recall it, Marsha, you're only allowed to be here on the condition that you shut the hell up about Bo's objectionable equation (intellect=SOM). These quotes only serve to remind me that you're living on borrowed time and skating on thin ice.