Re: MD Pirsig and Peirce

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 13:50:35 BST

  • Next message: Michael Mathews: "Re: MD A metaphysics"

    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?


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 13:48:44 BST