From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 21:44:38 BST
DMB said:
I'm puzzled by the following Pirsig quotes and, so far, the comments about them made by posters haven't helped. In both of the quotes he seems to be saying that the highest quality intellectual patterns are quite wrong. This doesn't make sense to me. How can we call it a high quality idea if it is wrong or untrue? Does he not also contradict himself by insisting that these "socially approved evaluations" are reality and sanity itself and then turn around and say they are wrong? And I've noticed that nobody is taking quotes from Lila on this matter. Do we have a case where Pirsig retroactively stresses the importance of a point he failed to make in his book? If so, wouldn't that constitute a fairly giant blunder? The notion that ideas about rocks come before rocks themselves seems to defy the very structure of his evolutionary morality, where one level emerges from the previous one. HELP!?
Matt:
I'd just like to say at the outset that I hope the ensuing discussion helps make my point (that Pirsig stuck his foot in his mouth by saying that ideas of rocks come before rocks) a little more plausible and lifelike.
Matt
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 : Sat Aug 16 2003 - 21:45:38 BST