[MD] "RMP: Ignoramous or fraud?

Fri Nov 4 12:45:20 PDT 2016

I'm not construing or restricting or downsizing.
it's a free world,but if you want to keep a audience in the cinema, you
will have to play a movie.
strip it down to the essential parts.Peel the philosophical onion.
strip the advertising parts out of the frame.
it is not about adding chrome to the doorhandle, but in handling the
doorhandle.The material.the story.

no varmint hunting.

2016-11-04 20:32 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:

> Adrie,
>
>
> > No , this is in no way what i say said or believe.Nobody who is sane will
> > derive
> > this from the earlier statements i made.
> > The beachcombing alinea was not aimed at you or your contextual
> situation.
> > Apparently  you and Auxier have a lot of venom towards Pirsig,Ant,and
> > Phaedrus.
> >
>
>
> Jc:  this is in no way what I say said or believe.  Nobody who is sane will
> derive this from earlier statements I made.
>
> I have had conflicts in the past, with dmb and ant, over various positions
> I've taken or arguments I've put forth.  That is true.  The fact that they
> then decided I wasn't worth any intellectual consideration at all, was
> theirs, after all, and what could a guy do from there but throw up his
> hands and walk away?  I don't want to argue forever for simple argument's
> sake nor do I want to resort to any sort of social pressure on what should
> be purely intellectual considerations - is it a good idea, or a bad idea,
> to believe thus and so?  That's all I care about.  That's what reading
> Robert Maynard Pirsid, did for me. He taught me process philosophy.  Maybe
> AN Whitehead DID invent it.  But so what?  What good does some egghead idea
> do, unless it actually meets me where I live.    Everywhere I've lived, the
> bookstores have these copies of ZAMM.  That's what I call accessible.
> That's what I call real.  I don't think I've ever actually stumbled across
> a book by Whitehead in any real bookseller or even the library.  I think he
> might be a special order - for the egg-heads.
>
>
>
>
> > If Auxier has difficulties deciding when Pirsig or Phaedrus is speaking
> in
> > the first  or second; etc...person,It is Auxier that should clean his
> foggy
> > glasses.
> >
> > I took some fast , very fast, diagonal snapshots of the work Whitehead
> > presented.I do not find any , ANY, model that is presented and could make
> > or fake or diguise a sort of pre-moq or proto-moq.......none, nothing....
> > But i found interesting points of interest,similarities , background
> > radiation so to speak of,new ways of understanding big parts of reality.
> > Yes i should think you probably have a case to present.A defendable case.
> >
> > If this case needs to contain crappy venom towards Ant, Pirsig,or
> Phaedrus
> > I will declare your case "moot" and drop it.
> > Do not try to shelter in Auxier's interlechcual armpits.
> > Build your case yourself. leave the path of  words that are taken to big,
> > like stealing, completely derived etcetera.
> >
> >
>
> jc:  Thanks. for the advice but, ... you're way off base in construing MY
> motives.  Just as far off as Auxier seems to be in HIS construal of
> Pirsig.  Well... I can only work on one problem at a time.  Help me with
> this one and maybe the other will become a bit clearer to you in the
> process.
>
> in the process,
>
> jc
>
>
>
>
>
> > --------------------------
> > I can admit that i used the beachcombing metafoor deliberatly.
> > Yes Phaedrus and Pirsig were beachcombing, like Plato was beachcombing
> > Socrates work.
> > This did not make him a fool , or a thief.He did not hide the fact that
> he
> > took lessons. Whitehead and William James are obligatory in
> philosophy....,
> > a child can do the laundry , John.
> > The list of examples is endless, and even Einstein took another man's
> work
> > as a starting point, to sharpen reality.
> >
> > You will have your tap on the back if you can stop twisting my words,and
> > only read what is written.nothing else.
> > make it solid,it will make you an autodidakt philosophologist.
> >
> > (I can see a new posting of David came in, nice written,correct
> insights.)
> >
> > Ok , let this sedate a bit.start reformatting yourself.
> > Adrie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016-11-04 18:17 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > PS:  If there is some antipathy toward Pirsig on Auxier's part, you can
> > > certainly see why in that passage I quoted from Lila!  It just about
> > NAILs
> > > the academic know-it-all attitude to the wall, which admittedly, Auxier
> > > generates from his pores.  But I still like the guy a lot and
> appreciate
> > > y'all's help in reconciling two men whom I appreciate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:14 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adrie,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Adrie Kintziger <
> parser666 at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But this aside, and adopting the term for metaforical purposes
> ,Pirsig
> > > >> is a beachcomber in the intellectual landscape ,beachcombing the
> > giant,
> > > >> and the world in wich we live, to show wat was laid bare by the
> storm
> > so
> > > >> to
> > > >> speak.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you agree with Auxier that Pirsig derived his MoQ entirely from
> > > > Whitehead?  To tell you the truth, I don't mind at all, it's just a
> > shock
> > > > to find out after all these years.
> > > >
> > > > Here is our conversation (mine and Auxier's) up to date.
> > > >
> > > > ----------- my email to Auxier:
> > > >
> > > > Randy,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Randall Auxier <
> > personalist61 at gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Zero. Chicago wasn't analytical at that time, and McKeon despised
> > > >> analytical philosophy. That day and age at U Chicago was 100%
> process
> > > >> philosophy, both in the Phil. dept and in every committee, including
> > the
> > > >> Divinity School. The list of process-professors is endless. Zero.
> > > >>
> > > >> RA
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are some pertinent biographical facts you're ignoring, Randy.
> > > > You're thinking "he'd have to be crazy to be in Chicago and not have
> > > heard
> > > > of Whitehead"  What you're forgetting is that he was crazy, and got
> so
> > > > crazy he had to be locked up and given electroshock therapy where he
> > had
> > > to
> > > > reconstruct his earlier work by looking at notes he'd kept.    His
> > story
> > > > isn't  made up although his story isn't so much a biography as it is
> a
> > > > novel - it's a novel about a man trying to reconstruct himself, which
> > is
> > > > hard to wrap your mind around (is this first person or third?)
> >  Paranoid
> > > > schizophrenics can't be judged on the basis of what a normal person
> or
> > > > student would do.  Pirsig passed over American Theistic philosophers
> > (or
> > > > inasmuch as he'd heard) like Whitehead and James.  His goal was
> > blending
> > > > eastern philosophy with western, as the title of his best selling
> book
> > > > illustrates.   THAT was the direction at which the old zen archer
> aimed
> > > his
> > > > intellect.
> > > >
> > > > But whatever he was aiming at,  he completely forgot in the aftermath
> > of
> > > > electro-convulsive therapy.
> > > >
> > > > I offer a few pertinent comments from Pirsig, to illustrate my point
> > that
> > > > he wasn't much of a philosophy student.
> > > >
> > > > Taken from  Robert Pirsig's commentary on Frederick Copleston's
> > 'History
> > > > of Philosophy', in a personal note to Anthony McWatt, who has a Ph.D
> in
> > > the
> > > > MoQ, from Oxford (although ant isn't much of a philosophologist
> either
> > -
> > > he
> > > > was an art major)
> > > >
> > > > January 2000
> > > >
> > > > *Dear Anthony McWatt,*
> > > >
> > > > *You asked in one of your letters how the MOQ compares with late 19th
> > > > Century idealism. The answer that follows copies part of Frederick
> > > > Copleston’s summary of that group in Volume 8 of his “History of
> > > > Philosophy” and inserts comparisons the MOQ. As I’ve said before,
> > > > philosophology isn’t my field, and I assume that Copleston’s
> > > understanding
> > > > of the positions of the various idealists is correct. Certainly it’s
> > > better
> > > > than mine, and using it and trusting it filters out a lot of red
> > > herring.*
> > > >
> > > > Ok, right there.  The only thing he knows about British Idealism is
> > what
> > > > he reads by another man.  How could this happen? Furthermore, he
> > > expresses
> > > > absolute surprise at what Coppleston describes of Bradley,  but then,
> > how
> > > > many philosophers read Bradley?  So understandable to an extent.  But
> > in
> > > > Lila he discovers William James(!)  Like, for the first time?  Sort
> of.
> > > > LIke with his blinders taken off by his own intellectual evolution.
> > > Which
> > > > makes it more interesting to me.
> > > >
> > > > he explains his overall attitude in Lila, describing  a boat trip,
> via
> > > the
> > > > old Eerie Lackawanna canal system to the Hudson and New York City:
> > > >
> > > > "One of the disadvantages of this boat life is you don't get to use
> > > public
> > > > libraries.
> > > > But he had found a bookstore with an old two-volume biography of
> > William
> > > > James that should hold him for a while. Nothing like some good old
> > > > "philosophology" to put someone to sleep. He took the top volume out
> of
> > > the
> > > > canvas bag, climbed into the sleeping bag and looked at the book's
> > cover
> > > > for a while.
> > > >
> > > > -26-
> > > >
> > > > He liked that word "philosophology." It was just right. It had a nice
> > > > dull, cumbersome, superfluous appearance that exactly fitted its
> > subject
> > > > matter, and he'd been using it for some time now.
> > > >
> > > > Philosophology is to philosophy as musicology is to music, or as art
> > > > history and art
> > > > appreciation are to art, or as literary criticism is to creative
> > writing.
> > > > It's a derivative, secondary field, a sometimes parasitic growth that
> > > likes
> > > > to think it controls its host by analyzing and intellectualizing its
> > > > host's behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Literature people are sometimes puzzled by the hatred many creative
> > > > writers have for them. Art historians can't understand the venom
> > either.
> > > He
> > > > supposed the same was true with musicologists but he didn't know
> enough
> > > > about them. But philosophologists don't have this problem at all
> > because
> > > > the philosophers who would normally condemn them are a null-class.
> They
> > > > don't exist. Philosophologists, calling themselves philosophers, are
> > just
> > > > about all there are.
> > > >
> > > > You can imagine the ridiculousness of an art historian taking his
> > > students
> > > > to museums, having them write a thesis on some historical or
> technical
> > > > aspect of what they see there, and after a few years of this giving
> > them
> > > > degrees that say they are accomplished artists. They've never held a
> > > brush
> > > > or a mallet and chisel in their hands. All they know is art history.
> > > > Yet, ridiculous as it sounds, this is exactly what happens in the
> > > > philosophology that calls itself philosophy. Students aren't expected
> > to
> > > > philosophize. Their instructors would hardly know what to say if they
> > > did.
> > > > They'd probably compare the student's writing to Mill or Kant or
> > somebody
> > > > like that, find the student's work grossly inferior, and tell him to
> > > > abandon it.
> > > >
> > > > As a student Phædrus had been warned that he would "come a cropper"
> if
> > he
> > > > got too attached to any philosophical ideas of his own. Literature,
> > > > musicology, art history and philosophology thrive in academic
> > > institutions
> > > > because they are easy to teach. You just Xerox something some
> > philosopher
> > > > has said and make the students discuss it, make them memorize it, and
> > > then
> > > > flunk them at the end of the quarter if they forget it.
> > > >
> > > > Actual painting, music composition and creative writing are almost
> > > > impossible to teach and so they barely get in the academic door.
> True
> > > > philosophy doesn't get in at all. Philosophologists often have an
> > > interest
> > > > in creating philosophy but, as philosophologists, they subordinate
> it,
> > > much
> > > > as a literary scholar might subordinate his own interest in creative
> > > > writing. Unless they are exceptional they don't consider the creation
> > of
> > > > philosophy their real line of work.
> > > > As an author, Phædrus had been putting off the philosophology, partly
> > > > because he didn't like it, and partly to avoid putting a
> > > philosophological
> > > > cart before the philosophical horse. Philosophologists not only start
> > by
> > > > putting the cart first; they usually forget the horse entirely. They
> > say
> > > > first you should read what all the great philosophers of history have
> > > said
> > > > and then you should decide what you want to say.
> > > >
> > > > The catch here is that by the time you've read what all the great
> > > > philosophers of history have said you'll be at least two hundred
> years
> > > old.
> > > > A second catch is that these great philosophers are very persuasive
> > > people
> > > > and if you read them innocently you may be carried away by what they
> > say
> > > > and never see what they missed."
> > > >
> > > > Lila - page 26
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > jc:
> > > >
> > > > So Professor, are you still sure there is a ZERO chance that Pirsig
> > > didn't
> > > > understand or read Whitehead?  If he did, then he's perpetrating one
> of
> > > the
> > > > most elaborate frauds I've ever known.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if this subject greatly interests you, but it sure does
> > me.
> > > >
> > > > --------Auxier's reply:
> > > >
> > > > Zero. You don't understand what actually happens in graduate seminars
> > in
> > > > philosophy, such as McKeon's. I have spent a lifetime both doing this
> > and
> > > > listening to it. You don't understand how students talk on their way
> > into
> > > > and out of class, or what they discuss on the days between. The
> entire
> > > > heady scene of graduate school, which Pirsig describes quite nicely
> in
> > > Zen,
> > > > includes all kinds of things that won't show up in books and
> letters. I
> > > > assure you, he knew and heard about and probably read Whitehead while
> > at
> > > > Chicago. If his memory was wiped out, that is hardly evidence against
> > > what
> > > > I'm saying. It helps my case. He relieved these ideas from the
> recesses
> > > of
> > > > a damaged cerebral cortex. Nothing unusual about that.
> > > >
> > > > --------
> > > >
> > > > So, he beachcombed Whitehead's ideas and presented them in novel
> form,
> > > > that's your claim Adrie?  I'm not trying to pin you down or "nail"
> you
> > in
> > > > any way.  But it's just such a revelation to me.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > John C.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "finite players
> > > play within boundaries.
> > > Infinite players
> > > play *with* boundaries."
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > parser
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
> Infinite players
> play *with* boundaries."
> 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
>

-- 
parser