ROG TO ELEPHANT
ELEPHANT:
Interesting - I seem to remember Prisig does mention James - can anybody out
there confirm this?
ROG:
Extensively. Especially in Ch 29. After reading James, all the stranger
threads of the MOQ connected into a much more understandable metaphysics. I
think that the MOQ is a direct extension of William James thoughts.
ELEPHANT:
But actually the Jamesian approach doesn't seem
ammenable to any "metaphysics of quality", whereas, to my mind, Dewey's
does. James is all for doing without philosophy and going back to what we
do, so it seems that he wouldn't take kindly to any metaphysics here - he
wouldn't want to make quality into a fundamental reality, he'd reject
fundamental realities (am I right?).
ROG:
We might want 3WD to jump in on this (another Dave). He is studying James. I
will say that James didn't like arguing over things that weren't relevant or
that would not make a difference "at definite instants of our life".
However, since Pirsig considers "direct everyday experience" (end of ch 29)
to be a metaphor for DQ, I think he meets this test. Direct experience is the
most common terminology Pirsig uses to help us relate to DQ.
James certainly wasn't into sweeping absolutes.
I never read any Dewey or Wittgenstein.
Rog
"It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into
insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a
concrete consequence." W.J.
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 - 16:00:51 BST