[MD] Sympathy for the Devil

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Ant, Marsha, Dan,

I see in this para of yours Ant :

On 6 Feb 2013 14:47, "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Seriously, as you implied in your last response to me in the "self" thread
> yesterday, both perspectives are useful in the right context.  I just have
> a feeling (feeling? is that the best term to use here; probably not) that
> the static viewpoint is the default one in LILA and so should be the
> default one here.  It's MOQ Discuss; not Mystic Discuss.  If you want to
> use the Dynamic viewpoint, the Tetralemma (Paul Turner's adopted "baby") or
> whatever esoteric perpective that Scott Roberts was going on about years
> ago (if I sound too dismissive of the latter - I shouldn't be because it IS
> worth at least being aware of these various perspectives), these viewpoints
> should be qualified before use.  It help keeps that little intellect of
> mine clear about what's going on; which metaphorical trees are where and in
> which metaphysical or mystical forest.
>

... that I understand why this issue is interminable. And I see now why I
agree with Marsha and Dan (and Paul it seems, PS encourage him to make
contact again).

Yes, Lila may have been written from that static perspective, but surely
the point was to educate and learn. I'm one of those who has flipped his
entire life viewpoint to the dynamic perspective (in fact already did, but
didn't know it). Sure, an academic "studying" Lila's place in the
philosophical canon may have to don the static hat, to join up the
syllogistic dots, but the point is surely to live the dynamic lesson
learned.

Also interesting given (say) DMB's vehement rejection of everything Marsha,
that your view is little more than a feeling, a preference. ie you don't
"reject" "our" perspective, you simply point out why it's different - which
we knew already?

I reject limiting MD to the static view. Surely our topic (on MD) is a
living philosophy - not "what Pirsig wrote".
Ian