Jason Gaedtke (jgaedtke@scitele.com)
Mon, 1 Sep 1997 04:16:44 +0100
Platt,
Thank you for the time that you took to address my question. I found your
comments highly valuable, but I do have several questions (regarding your
interpretation of Pirsig's work) that I hope you can clear up for me.
First, I'll accept your point on rationalism. I have (consciously) favored
such an approach in my prior posts, but I do appreciate the undeniable
importance of intuitive experience as well. I agree that Pirsig heavily
promotes the value of intuition, but you can't deny the fact that his
writing and thinking is highly structured and analytical at its core.
After all, the MoQ is a rational system. That is the point that I was
trying to make here. If we're going to promote a coherent metaphysics --
one that is to be excepted on a global scale, we must continue that
endeavor through to the end. Perhaps there will come a point where
rational tools can take us no further. Rational methods must then wisely
give way to complimentary intuitive ones -- as exquisitely illustrated in
many Eastern philosophies. My humble suggestion is that we get what
mileage we can out of our familiar rational tools before we render them
obsolete.
I must be a bit more harsh with your comments regarding relativism: "all
assumptions are equally worthy." What I am offering is that we carefully
and completely consider all ideas/suggestions/assumptions before denying
their relative value. After such consideration, I do believe a distinction
MUST be made between high-Quality ideas and lower-Quality ones. (My
question regarding characteristics of this valuation process still
stands...)
This quote, in fact, sounds a bit (too much) like relativism to me:
As for deciding which assumptions are true, I like Pirsig's art gallery
analogy in Chapter B,"... simply to enjoy and keep those that are of
value."
Comments?
Finally, I entirely disagree with your comments regarding pragmatism.
After all, the original impetus for Pheadrus' philosophical quest (back in
ZMM) was to develop a world view which more closely coalescenced with real
world experiences than that resulting from the restrictive Subject/Object
dichotomy. I believe that Pirsig's Static/Dynamic split effectively serves
this purpose. Do you feel that attempting to apply the MoQ as an ethical
system has the effect of "retarding the evolution of truth and Dynamic
Quality?" (Isn't the central theme of your message essentially a
(thoughtful) example of the pragmatic virtue of Pirsig's thought?) I think
this is an important point that requires further elaboration and
discussion.
You personal application of the framework was very interesting and
insightful. Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Regards,
Jason
-- post message - mailto:skwokÉspark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquadÉgeocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST