Struan Hellier wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Firstly a quick comment to JoVo. Thanks for the posting. I disagree with your assessment of my
> motivation, but appreciate being made to think about it in such a way. I do a lot more than merely
> contradict, always giving step by step rebuttals and citing evidence where needed and, as you,
> "consider (my) contributions in general as not only beneficial
> for an understanding of the MoQ, if not even indispensable," I wonder that you are worried about why
> I do it. Can't you just be happy that someone does?
>
> IAN:
> "If Pirsig is right or wrong is less in question, for me, than that he
> *cares*. He has documented bashing his head against a glass wall and
> this is, ultimately, heroic. I earnestly wish that one day I should
> have the same courage."
With full intention, I did not claiming Pirsig's work right or wrong. I just
said, that is considered of most of the members as being something 'important
and positive' and seems to match your point of view too, isn't it?
>
> Quite right. Perhaps you should be more like me, Ian. Caring about questions AND answers does bring
> attacks upon oneself, (as shown in your ultimate paragraph). Still, I bash away astonished that
> anyone would have the remotest interest in my motivation.
>
> The good and the true. What more motivation could I need?
>
> Struan
>
> P.S. To answer David Lind and others. "Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the
> measure you get, and still more will be given you." (Mark 4:24). I ask those who would criticise me
> for my tone to find a posting of mine to which they object and then look at the posting I am
> replying to with an equally critical eye. I never initiate it, but am happy to give it back. The
> sole reason why only I get it in the neck is that people also find my ideas objectionable. Can
> anyone out there look me in the eye and tell me that, for example, Rich Pretti didn't go way beyond
> me in insults and childishness? And yet the closest anyone has come to criticising him is David with
> his gentle request that he and I 'play nice.' The elaboration, even here, was aimed at me! Don't get
> me wrong, I don't feel hard done by at all. I am merely pointing out an element of hypocrisy here.
>
> Enough of this side-show, I am pleased to see that a number of people have responded to ideas I have
> raised, and in the same reasonable and polite way in which I raised them. I will now turn my
> attention to them and, of course, respond to them in the same way I have always responded to those
> who don't automatically treat me like a wanker for no other reason than that they disagree with me.
> ------------------------------------------
> Struan Hellier
Hi Struan, Ian and all,
Thanks for your comment on my post, even if it is short. Now I was looking for
the post, that produced my irritation and I guess it was the one below. It was
the last paragraph, in which you say: ....if I ever were to find the MoQ
becoming...', that seems to contain the intention to tear down MoQ in the effort
to save the world from the devil himself. I mean, if you believe that MoQ is
inconsistent, selfcontradicting and weak in it's arguments you could make
yourself comfortable in an armchair and wait to see it washed down to the sands.
You could be sure, that evolution goes over it and makes it a dead end in the
history of philosophy finally. To say, that you would '...consider it my (moral)
duty to publish something against it...', does sound to me more like starting a
sort of 'religious war' against MoQ, don't you think? ;-) Well at least I must
have misunderstood you then.
Struan Hellier wrote on: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:19:47 +0100
>
> Greetings,
>
> Platt. Your comment about the need for Pirsig in the US got me thinking. I have almost no experience
> of education over the pond (my brother lectured in astronomy at the University of Texas for three
> years and we regularly see, via the newspapers, dead children and teachers being dragged out of the
> occasional American school, but that is as close as I have got), however, I am convinced that in
> England the pursuit of beauty and truth is paramount. Looking at Amazon.com in comparison to
> Amazon.co.uk, it is perhaps instructive that Lila is 2000th'ish on the best seller list in the
> States, while it doesn't even make the top 100 000 over here. On the whole, we clearly aren't
> interested. I suggest the reason may be that Pirsig is, in the words of Oxford metaphysician, Galen
> Strawson, 'rigorously unoriginal,' to most people with a half-decent education. ZAMM, by contrast,
> sold by the shed-full. Not for the philosophy, which is disjointed and impenetrably confused, but
> because it was a seriously well written and original narrative.
>
> Perhaps you, Platt, could tell me what you consider to be the, "small step from their “transcendent
> world of values as the greatest good” to Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality," and I will then try and
> tell you what I object to about it. I worry that your answer will rely upon the myth of SOM to
> substantiate itself - and that in itself would be an answer to your question of making the small
> step - but let us see.
>
> Finally, I have been providing evidence against almost every aspect of the MoQ for almost three
> years. Of course I don't expect anyone here to agree with me (they would be unlikely to be here if
> they did after all), but I do find it a fun relaxation aside from what I consider to be my serious
> philosophical work. I did, at one time, consider putting it all together into one extended piece but
> confess that I have never managed to see it as important enough to do so. If I ever were to find the
> MoQ becoming accepted by more than a handful of people, then I would consider it my (moral) duty to
> publish something against it. As time goes by, I have come to realise that this will never happen
> and so am happy to throw a few ideas in whenever I feel like it. It is nice to have a bit of dynamic
> debate every now and then, don't you think?
>
> I know I haven't answered your questions fully, Platt. If you could see your way to answering mine
> first then I will do so.
>
> Struan
As for intellectual battles I may remark, that I like it in general. Alas my
English isn't good enough to really have a fair chance. I'd rather more prefer
to look at the deeper sense of language's meaning in effort to find underlying
layers of pattern and structure, i.e. the message being in there, than doing
scientific language research. I'm doing so in my first language, but as for
English that's to difficult for me. Concerning the search for patterns as
mentioned above, I'm doing so as long as I can think of, presumbly for the
reason, that my 'mechanical memory' is bad. Nevertheless as I'm attached to both
the natural sciences (my studies) and the human sciences (my family), I always
tend to look at things from both points of view.
PS.: Following the metaphysics-thread of yours and others with great interest
Greetings JoVo
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 - 16:00:44 BST