From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 13:46:18 GMT
Matt, DMB, Sam, All:
MATT:
> I'm pretty sure I remember reading in Lila once a line like, "The
> MoQ exists whether we know it or not," or something along those lines (for
> the life of me I can't remember where it was). If that line exists, or
> lines like it, then support is given to the Platt/Bo interpretation.
PIRSIG:
"Actually the issue before him was not whether there should be a
metaphysics of Quality or not. There already is a metaphysics of
Quality" (9)
PH
Perhaps this is the line you have a vague recollection of. He then goes
on to explain why SOM is MOQ in disguise and why it's impossible to
create a perfect (absolute) metaphysics, one that will "win every time."
All I am arguing, and have ever argued, is that the MOQ is a better
metaphysics than its rivals, including Rorty's metaphysics that denies
metaphysics.
Perhaps if we agreed that "theories of reality" was a more useful :-) term
than "metaphysics," some of our disagreements would dissolve. Then
Rorty's theory, stripped of its arcane vocabulary, would be seen as, "All
theories of reality are equally good and therefore equally worthless."
Platt
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 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 13:49:36 GMT