[MD] Un-Pure Experience

[david buchanan]

dmb said to D. Thomas:
Like I just said, Mao is obviously a SOMer and Pirsig's "direct experience" is what you get after you've rejected SOM. Their meanings are not just distinguishable from each other, they are features of two completely different metaphysics. Further, we can get a fix on how Pirsig is using phrases like "direct experience" by comparing all the other phrases and terms for DQ. We can compare it with the way other philosophers use their terms too, especially the ones that Pirsig himself has already acknowledged, like Northrop and James. He tells us that James even uses the same exact terms; static and dynamic. 


D. Thomas replied:
So what both you are saying in flurry of sand is that neither "direct experience" nor "intellectual abstractions" have any plain English definitions. Because once you reject SOM, SOM (plain English) words and definitions are meaningless under the MoQ. You're claiming Pirsig's work is LITERALLY incomparable to any other works of philosophy, except of course by dedicated "Pirsigians" like you who though zazen, peyote, and other self induced mystical experiences parse their true meaning. ...



dmb says:

Are you deliberately reversing my claim for comic effect, or what? 

I'm talking about a very serious problem. Mr. Thomas is not the only one around here who appears to lack basic reading skills. Those who continue to be confused about the meaning of Pirsig's central terms are the same people who continue to misuse the terms, produce contradictory phrases, run-on sentences, and otherwise write badly. This is not just a coincidence. Their general incompetence with respect to language has everything to do with their confusion about the MOQ. The results would be the same regardless of which philosophers were being discussed, if not worse. I mean, James and Pirsig are much more readable than most philosophers. 

Sorry, but I am sick to death of watching hacks blame Pirsig for their own confusion. The MOQ is definable and knowable and the whole thing is built of words and concepts. Obviously, discussing his work (or anyone else's) requires us to bring some linguistic tools and skills to task. It also demands intellectual honesty so that people respond to the actual claims of others without reversing, ignoring or distorting them.