From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 16:57:46 BST
Paul,
This is an interesting reconstructed dialogue, so I'll reprint it because I think it punches up how people should read me:
Paul said:
I thought the initial question was: "Is there merit in using the term "Quality" to point to something beyond words?"
To which you said something like: "well Pirsig doesn't use it in that way."
I said: "actually, he does"
You said something like: "But I ignore those bits because I don't think they have merit"
I guess I misunderstood your discussion.
Matt:
I think the misunderstanding is in what you read me as saying the first time. I wouldn't say "Pirsig doesn't use it in that way." What I usually say is something like, "Pirsig isn't using it that way _right here_ [enter quoted bit]" I focus on a section and interpret it. In doing this, I elicited Pirsig's support in saying that it doesn't have merit, but I wasn't quite saying anything about Pirsig's thought in general. To use the split I made earlier, I wasn't reconstructing Pirsig, I was saying something about what I think. So, that's why I don't think I was begging the question. I was saying why I didn't think Quality pointed to anything beyond words, and I used Pirsig to help my case. And then I said "I ignore those bits" because I do. They are the letter of Pirsig, but I do not think they are the spirit.
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 -
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 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 17:02:44 BST