Diana and all;
This has got to be the most exciting thread I have ever seen in this forum.
It's hard enough to argue over philosophy when it's consise and "clear"; but
Pirsig is as much a novelist as a philosopher and so our forum often winds
up looking like some nightmarish intellectual hybrid between philosophy and
literary criticsm. Rich's post has made the call for something I (and I
suspect many others) really believe this forum and this metaphysics needs---
some set agreements (or axioms if you prefer) from which to argue from and
about. One of the most basic "rules" of Rhetoric is that no arguementation
is possible without some other agreedupon premises.
What this looks like (at least to me) is a call for a sort of
"Constitutional MoQ". We have a sort of bicameral forum here (MD and MF)
but no "constitution". Imagine congress trying to make laws if the U.S.
constitution was as thick and poetic as the Bible--- that's us.
This is a project that will take months, if not years---but I fail to see
how this forum will ever be able to accomplish anything without this
"constitution". Then maybe we can send that to Pirsig for comment, repair
and inspiration....
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST