RE: MD Dealing with the MOQ

From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 12:56:47 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"

    Hi Matt and all

    Paul said:
    In a nutshell, it seems to me that trying to bring Coleridge/Barfield
    and Pirsig together doesn't work and doesn't help in understanding the
    vocabulary of either.

    Scott said:
    I think I agree.

    Matt said:
    Ah, poo poo on you both! I say, bring together whoever you like and see
    if anything interesting pops out. And, I would say at least on the
    surface, something interesting can be pulled out of Pirsig-Coleridge or
    Pirsig-Barfield colligations. Scott's been pulling around Barfield long
    enough for me to think so.

    Paul:
    Matt, you've convinced me that these discussions are not really what I
    am looking for right now. This and your other post...

    "I could point to all the places I talk about Pirsig. I could point to
    all the places that others do not. I could point out that "Pirsigian"
    isn't the name of a language and that, even if it was, nobody has ever
    spoken it here, that a Pirsigian vocabulary, like a Rortyan vocabulary,
    simply refers to a short list of idiosyncratic terms that need a lot of
    other common terms to be supported in any meaningful way. I could do
    that, but I won't because I think I've taken all of those tacts.
    Instead, I'm going to answer that I've come to discuss philosophy with
    other philosophy lovers. This site provides a space. Don't like it?
    Don't listen in, change the channel, walk out of the room, do all the
    other things people do to not take part in a conversation: delete the
    e-mail."

    ...has finally helped me see that this has become more of a general
    philosophy forum than a site to discuss Pirsig's metaphysics in depth
    and in its own vocabulary and definitions as provided by the author.
    Indeed, it seems that the idea of agreeing on the meaning of MOQ
    vocabulary and definitions has been generally declared either impossible
    or even undesirable.

    So, as I have no other pet philosophy project or alternative MOQ
    interpretation to discuss, it seems I've little to add to these
    discussions other than trying to disentangle and [as you point out]
    stifle the interpretations and syntheses of others.

    I think it's time to lurk for a while...

    Paul

    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 Sep 16 2003 - 12:58:37 BST