From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 13:50:35 BST
Hi Scott,
> I also think that Coleridge's metaphysics is better than Pirsig's, for
> precisely the things that are bothering you. Coleridge emphasizes the
> distinction between thinking and thoughts, for example. He would not
> have equated "static intellectual patterns of value" with "mind", or
> "thinking". Basically, Coleridge has a full philosophy of mind and
> nature (and which turn out to be the same) which Pirsig lacks, though
> the basics of it are there in the DQ/SQ split. My assumption is that, in
> writing Lila, Pirsig did not see the need to get to it, and in a way he
> was right. However, if one does want to get to it, the tools and
> terminology aren't there -- hence the debates here on the nature of the
> intellectual level, your distress at the annotating Pirsig, etc. The
> tools and terminology can be found in Coleridge.
Coleridge sounds cool. But, does he have anything to say about
morality? Does he equate morality with quality as Pirsig does?
Thanks.
Platt
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 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 13:48:44 BST