From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 16:48:53 GMT
Hi David, Matt, Platt, all,
Matt said:
I think the issue is whether Pirsig thinks he's found the correct final
vocabulary that reality wishes we would just get on and describe it as or
whether Pirsig thinks he is just offering us one more way of describing
reality.
DMB said:
He says its not that the MOQ is any truer than SOM in any abosolute Hegalian
sense, whatever that is, its just that the MOQ explain more of the world and
explains it better. He says all our intellectual constructs are provisional,
good only until something better comes along. He refers to philosophies as
if they were just so many paintings hanging in a gallery. To explore
philosophy and philosophers, he says, start with the ones you like, the ones
you already agree with. He's loaded Lila up with sassy stuff like that. I
don't know if I would have thought to call this a pragmatist reading, I just
think its groovy.
Platt said:
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.
Sam wonders: are we seeing glimmerings of agreement? In other words, that
Pirsig's analogy of philosophies being like paintings is something that
applies to the MoQ as well, and that we can all agree on that?
Sam
"Ask yourselves when are we going to see the first journal of bio-hacking
oriented toward teenage males, so they can create molecules in their
bedroom. Well, that journal came out in 1998. Be very afraid." (Bill Joy)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Feb 18 2003 - 17:49:22 GMT