From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 17:37:13 GMT
This has nothing to do with Pirsig, which means that I will be
I wanted to point out that Bo kinda' charged me with being a reductive
idealist and DMB charged me with being reductive physicalist.
First, I think this funny. Second, I still can't figure out what this has
to do with Pirsig. Naturally we would all like Pirsig to be the perfect
philosopher, whatever that means for each of us, but I thought I had pretty
well bracketed my own desires in my explication of the passage. I very well
stipulated what I thought Rick's question meant (Rick even pretty much
agreed on my interpretation of the question) and I still think what I said
bears out the implications of the passage given the question. I'm waiting
for someone to give an alternate close reading.
Still the funniest part of all this? Reading past all the bs and vocable
differences, I still see DMB and me agreeing on how best to read Pirsig.
Our main differences are on how Pirsig reads himself (e.g., DMB and I
probably differ in degree as to how literally Pirsig takes his own analogy)
and how effective Pirsig's choice of words are (DMB takes him as being
straightforward, I take him as being ambiguous). But as far as our own
philosophies are concerned, I think DMB and are in large agreement, just not
in how we say it.
That's, at least, what has become apparent to me.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 23:20:49 GMT