From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 03:15:07 GMT
Matt, DMB,
> I think Pirsig is too ambiguous to be read either as a straight pragmatist
> or a straight absolutist and I address several of the quotes one could use
> for either side (the Hegelian Aboslute quote, I believe, makes an
> appearance, for instance). And I haven't been convinced yet that he's
> found a third path. Because of this, I contend that to read Pirsig as a
> pragmatist (which I've been trying to do and I think you would be on your
> way towards doing if you try and hold Quality as a metaphor inspite of the
> MoQ's attempts to define it) or as some sort of metaphysical absolutist
> (which Platt and others have been trying to do) is to misread him. It is
> to pick a position on either side of the fence, which forces you to ignore
> other passages.
So why not accept that both sides are necessary, that the ambiguity is an
inevitable aspect of the third path, that the third path can never quite be
"found" as it must always oscillate? I would not go so far as to say that
this was what Pirsig was purposely up to, but I do think it an interesting
misreading, at least.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 28 2003 - 03:15:27 GMT