Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:04:27 +0100
"One can't argue against a theory until one can state the theory
in such a way that those who hold it recognize his correct understanding
of it."
The obvious problem occurs when there is dissagreement over who
are the ones who "got it." There is disintion within the Lila squad as to
the finer points of MoQ.
But putting that beside the point -- I'm not going to
credentialize myself, or fight over who gets to be the High Priest of
Pirsig. For one thing I'm not attacking MoQ -- I'm raising
some questions around it -- here we are in the corral, here's what's in
the corral, now let's look over the fence and see what the heck is going
on outside the corral. Explication vs. original thinking is the differance
between doing philosophy and talking about it (pilosolology). (It's like
sex, it's fun to talk about, but there's no substitute for the real thing.
(Sorry about that. :-7 )) There's a nice discussion in the ZMM GUIDEBOOK
about mistaking a map for a journey.
(What's the difference between a book about reality, like LILA,
and the reality of a book?)
I've got this bit of writting that I'm working on tenativly titled
_"Can Logic be Institutionalized? Dunderbeck's Saussage Machine"_ about
the Church of Reason. Maybe after I finnish it I'll submit it to the Web
page Forum. It would address Platt's questions about why I raise these
questions about what's over the fence. I mean if you or I study Phil. just
for fun -- Great! More power to us. But this is (for better or worse) also
a profesional, institutionalized disciplan. Why? Should it be? I mean if
Prof. Knows-a-lot says to Dean Tightwad, "Well, we're just doing this to
have fun," -- by-by Phil. Dept. Maybe you think that's a good thing...
Maybe it is.
? ? ?
CU
Donny
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST