[MD] Where does DQ end and SQ begin and SQ end and DQ begin? It's all bananas isn't it?

[MarshaV]

Ant,

Thanks for your opinion.  Also, I read somewhere that Buddha not only was a symbol for a man, but also a symbol for the teaching.  And the references to Buddhism you also included in the MoQ textbook.  

 
Marsha 




On Mar 2, 2013, at 11:38 AM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Ant McWatt said to Mr Thomas & Mr Buchanan:
> 
> ... Firstly, though Strawson is largely dismissive of LILA and Pirsig ("like some nut hanging out at your local library..."), he did conclude by saying that he might be wrong about the MOQ.   
> 
> Secondly, my own take with Strawson, Dennett, Rorty (RIP) et al is that they are/were too involved - at their stages of career - with promoting their own philosophical "rides" / "pet projects".  If they admitted the MOQ had value then - due to the latter's radical differences with Cartesian based Western philosophy - they would have had to throw out decades worth of work.  I could see only a very open minded, intellectually strong character do that.  And, anyway, I don't think such a change of mind is necessary with these SOM dinosaurs as younger academics such as Andrew Sneddon or David Granger have their own ideas which will become established in their own time on the international "scene".
> 
> dmb says:
> That's right. Not only are there two Ph.D. dissertations and two Masters theses specifically about Pirsig's work, there are lots of scholars who fully appreciate the pragmatism and radical empiricism of William James and John Dewey. This basically represents agreement with Pirsig by proxy. Daniel Dennett has adopted James's view of free-will, for example. PF Strawson has adopted James's view on pan-experientialism. The Dali Lama's former translator is the biggest William James fan in the world. David Scott points out that the Buddha himself was a pragmatist and a radical empiricist just like James. Eugene Taylor, who recently passed away, was a philosopher and an historian of psychology at Harvard who brilliantly defended James. And I've had conversations with lots of amateur philosophers and students of philosophy who are perfectly capable of understanding what the pragmatists and radical empiricist are saying. To suggest that nobody can understand is just an ignorant thing 
> to say. Lots of people get it but not around here, oddly. 
> 
> And there are lots of academic professionals who think Rorty can't rightly be called a pragmatist. The pragmatist who supervised my thesis, for example, wrote a book saying that Rorty "eviscerates" pragmatism. He comes out the analytic school, which is very, very different in substance, style and temperament. Ron DiSanto, the co-author of the Guidebook to Zen and the Art had no trouble understanding Pirsig, obviously, and he had no trouble understanding my Masters thesis either. Patrick Doorly of Oxford University is about the publish about the MOQ and art. Michael Sexson and Charlie Pinkava, two of newest friends, not only arranged the honorary PhD for Pirsig and organized the Chautauqua 2012 at Montana State University, they also teach classes on Pirsig's work.
> 
> No, the idea that nobody understands Pirsig is demonstrably false. In fact, it's a ridiculously ignorant thing to say. You're just blaming everyone else for your own confusion. If you want to understand it, then you have to do the work. Period. Comprehension is not a divine gift or a raw talent. It takes time and effort and even then you only have a chance. Without doing the work, either formally or informally, you have no chance. 
> 
> 
> C'mon, Dave. Get real. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		 	   		  
> 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


 
___