Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:13:21 +0100
Hi again Donny
Donald T Palmgren wrote:
>
> "One can't argue against a theory until one can state the theory
> in such a way that those who hold it recognize his correct understanding
> of it."
>
> The obvious problem occurs when there is dissagreement over who
> are the ones who "got it." There is disintion within the Lila squad as to
> the finer points of MoQ.
No problem really, everybody does it every day. It's up to each and
everyone to decide for him/herself.
> But putting that beside the point -- I'm not going to
> credentialize myself, or fight over who gets to be the High Priest of
> Pirsig. For one thing I'm not attacking MoQ -- I'm raising
> some questions around it
And you'll get mu answers until they get relevant. I don't ask you
why Hegel was a dualist.
> I've got this bit of writting that I'm working on tenativly titled
> _"Can Logic be Institutionalized? Dunderbeck's Saussage Machine"_ about
> the Church of Reason. Maybe after I finnish it I'll submit it to the Web
> page Forum. It would address Platt's questions about why I raise these
> questions about what's over the fence. I mean if you or I study Phil. just
> for fun -- Great! More power to us. But this is (for better or worse) also
> a profesional, institutionalized disciplan. Why? Should it be? I mean if
> Prof. Knows-a-lot says to Dean Tightwad, "Well, we're just doing this to
> have fun," -- by-by Phil. Dept. Maybe you think that's a good thing...
> Maybe it is.
This is a typical SOM question. In SOMese, this is where the discussion
ends, with a just-what-you-like-subjective question. No more rational
arguments are possible. In MOQese, this is the start, "...need we ask
anyone...".
Magnus
--
"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
N. Peart - Rush
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST