From: Glenn Bradford (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 14:43:41 GMT
"Erin N." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From email@example.com =====
>>"Erin N." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>PIRSIG:Even the idea of insanity as "possession by the
>>>>Devil" can be explained by the Metaphysics of Quality as a lower biological
>>>>pattern, "the Devil," trying to overcome a higher pattern of conformity to
>>>ERIN: Eh Glenn, a couple of quotes marks can go a long way
>>>can't they? Let's not try and remove them so we can fit
>>>what Pirsig's says to what we believe.;-P
>>>Just wondering is there in the archives a
>>>comparison/contrast of Pirsig's "insanity" (looky
>>>at the quotes Glenn) and Lila's "insanity".
>>You say these "quotes marks can go a long way", and then don't
>>say why. How Pirsig of you. It seems to me that Pirsig is saying
>>the Devil is a biological pattern simply so he can win a point, a
>>point that is undeserved. He wants to use the moral taxonomy to
>>claim (with certitude) that belief in "possession by the Devil" is
>>immoral compared to cultural norms. To do this he must put "the
>>Devil" in a lower level. So he does. He provides no justification
>>for this. How is the Devil a biological pattern? How is "possession
>>by the Devil" a biological pattern? There are modern theories that
>>say insanity is biologically based, but these do not involve the
>>devil or contain notions that the insane are possessed by them.
>To me the quotes said that he didn't believe in calling it Devil,
>but he could explain the phenomenon.
>If a scientist came and wanted to explain why some people
>claimed to see a UFOs and in his explanation of this
>phenonenon that people called UFOs he would write "UFOs" ya know. Then you
>come and say spooky Mr. Scientist thinks there are UFOs.
I never said that Mr. Pirsig thought there were devils in human form.
I only said this was a conclusion you could draw from the MOQ. It was
a chop-buster, aimed at showing what you could conclude from its
premises (interpreted a certain way, it turns out).
>I didn't explain it because I thought it was
>self-explanatory--I am not a "crook" for doing what I did Glenn.
>But your act was wrong to me-it's distortion.
OK, now I see what you mean by the quotation marks. Well, I didn't
read into the quotation marks that way, and it's surely not obvious.
The quotation marks could just benignly combine the two words
"the Devil" into a phrase, quoting/referring back its use in the
preceding phrase "possession by the Devil". He thinks poorly of the
Devil in my interpretation as well, enough to put it in the lowly
biological level. Putting "the Devil" in quotes does not
necessarily signal that he has reconstructed it. I would give
your interpretation more credence if I saw more evidence elsewhere in
Pirsig's writing that he thinks insanity is biologically based. Quite
the contrary, I think the MOQ does NOT endorse this view. He doubts,
for example, that values even reside in the brain. But Pirsig flip-flops
on so many issues that I think you could be right.
By the way, Erin, another use of quotation marks is to quote the exact
words someone uses, so quoting the word "crook" could lead people
who are not following the thread carefully to think I called you that.
Not only did I *not* call you that, but there is no implication of it
in my writing - only in your imagination.
>You are right, not all would be based in biological, but
>that doesn't mean it doesn't affect the biological in the
>similar or same way.
I never said this, Erin. Please get it right.
The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 14:45:29 GMT