[MD] Thinkers and Rainers?

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Ian]
"Problems with the MoQ"?
Nah, keep up.

[Arlo]
"Problems with the MOQ" was DM's phrase ("my view and why it reveals problems in the MOQ"), Ian, not mine. Keep up.

[Ian]
Problems with dmb dogma dominated MD more like.

[Arlo]
What "dogma"? I think DMB has been nothing but consistent and accurate in representing Pirsig's metaphysics. Give me an example of something 'better' that you feel DMB's 'dogma' has excluded?

[Ian]
Not "alternatives to" more "complementary views of", views that fill in gaps for the open minded.

[Arlo]
What "gap" do you think Speculative Realism "fills in", and why should we not just embrace that and leave Pirsig's MOQ behind? I mean, I did ask if it "enhanced" or maybe was "symbiotic", but if you think "fills in gaps" is better, whatever.

Are you agreeing with DM that Pirsig needs "pre-conceptual patterns" to make it "better"? Or is this something like 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' kinda deal?




On 21 Oct 2013 21:45, "ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [DM]
> If anyone wants to follow a genuinely open exploration of non-dualist
> thinking in a broader and better connected tradition I recommend
> Speculative Realism,  shame really,  the MOQ deserves better.
>
> [Arlo]
> This is an interesting statement. What does "the MOQ deserves better"
> mean? Are you suggesting "Speculative Realism" as an alternative to
> Pirsig's MOQ? Or are you suggesting that elements of Speculative Realism
> can be used to enhance Pirsig's philosophy? And if the latter, why not a
> full replacement? Does Pirsig's MOQ offer something that Speculative
> Realism lacks? Are you suggesting a symbiotic joining to address
> insufficiencies in both?
>
> Also, a while back you said...
>
> [DM]
> I can't see any benefit in me setting out how I understand what James,
>  Pirsig,  Northrop are saying because I am arguing that what they appear to
> be saying in certain specific ways is wrong or confusing, it seems to me
> that the people who disagree with me should be able to show me why I am
> wrong or how I can resolve my concerns by changing my approach...  If
> people do not make an effort to understand my view and why it reveals
> problems in the MOQ...
>
> [Arlo]
> I think what people have been saying is that your views do not reveal
> "problems in the MOQ" because you are misunderstanding what Pirsig, James
> and Northrop have said. You refuse to accept this, and keep insisting that
> your problems are the result of faulty reasoning on the parts of Pirsig,
> James and Northrop.
>
> However, you seem convinced that Speculative Realism addresses the
> problems of Pirsig, James and Northrop. So, try as I might I can't find a
> clear articulation of what exactly you feel is deficient in Pirsig, and
> if/how Speculative Realism extends/replaces his ideas? What does
> Speculative Realism offer that Pirsig/James/Northrop do not?
>
>
> 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
>
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