Greetings,
I enjoyed 3WD's nose tweaking greatly. His 'critique' penetrated this 'thick
. . . uncomprehending skull' with remarkable ease, and, due to its density;
it will be fun to dispose of:
3WD
"C-1-"The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism.
It claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or
by thinking about what the senses provide." Lila- pg. 113
Since this is almost a word for word definition of empiricism that most
sources trace through the British empirical movement to Francis Bacon it
would be difficult to see how a definition created and refined before
Pirsig was born could be contingent on a "strawman" he created after
their deaths. Unless of course "SOM" was and integral part of
empiricism, which no card carrying "academic" empiricist would admit to,
in as much as this might lend support to Pirig's "SOM" claim. No
difference here."
There is a difference between the 'claim' that empiricism is followed by the
moq and the 'actuality' that it isn't. The DEFINITION of empiricism is not
contingent upon a strawman while the moq is. Even if I am wrong and the moq
is empirical, this argument fails because the conclusion that a definition
of empiricism cannot be contingent upon a strawman is not supported by (or
even related to) the reason given, namely, that the definition of empiricism
precedes the exposition of som.
3WD - FOLLOWING A QUOTATION FROM JAMES
"What James as much as says here is that "no one" can escape the common
sense notion of subjects and objects as they are the "natural
mother-tongue of thought." Pirsig acknowledges that this has been,
generally continues to be so, and he names it "SOM". He then, contrary
to James, goes on to claim that it is not a necessary condition, and
that a change to "the more critical notion" of reality as " a group of
sense-qualities united by a law", moral laws, is not only possible, IS
MORE REAL and BETTER than the current systems of thought. So given that
Pirsig has at least, rightly or wrongly, been original in naming the
"nature mother-tongue" of [Western] thought "SOM" and that he believes
that James was wrong in thinking that humans could not be escaped from
it [some schools of Eastern thought ,Zen at least, never went there] I
feel Strawson second claim of "rigorously unoriginal" is laid to rest."
I am pretty sure that Strawson did not have James in mind when he called the
moq 'rigorously unoriginal' and I have yet to meet anyone who denies, "the
common sense notion of subjects and objects as . . . the "natural
mother-tongue of thought"". But, most importantly, you simply cannot
conclude that one philosopher (James) not concluding what Pirsig concludes
is conclusive evidence that no other philosopher does. This is a rash
generalisation of the most remarkably stupid kind. By all means you can call
James to Pirsig's defence, but you cannot rationally claim that everything
which Pirsig says and which James doesn't, has to be original Pirsig, yet
that is the natural corollary of your position.
3WD - AFTER ANOTHER SIMILAR EXAMPLE WHICH ATTRACTS THE SAME RESPONSE
"I could go on and on in this manner, . . . . "
. . . positing your position that just because James didn't say something
and Pirsig did, Pirsig must be original?? This does nothing but evade the
issue.
3WD
"and Harmony, the thread title concludes indicating the critic's dislike
for Pirsig's "harmony" response in a recent letter to Bo. But was not
the response very similar to James in "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth"
where we read: . . . . "
Followed by a passage in which the only relation to Pirsig I can see is the
word 'harmonious'. But, again, if I am wrong and missing something, one
philosopher backing up Pirsig in one aspect of his thought is neither an
argument for the validity of som, nor a refutation of my argument. It goes
without saying that harmony is a valuable quality to which any theory should
aspire. Even if I am doubly wrong the quotation only serves to show the
pragmatist's belief in the subjectivity of truth:
"True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and
verify. False ideas are those we can not."
Well I can't 'assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify' the moq.
Therefore, by James' criteria of truth, the moq is false, for me. This
accords well with James' claim that metaphysics cannot reveal the inner
nature of the universe.
Technical backup?!? If you must tweak my nose, Dave, you really need to get
a bit closer than that, otherwise you end up falling flat on your face, as
you have . . . . and, as an aside, it will please me greatly if the strawman
argument is not seen as a problem here as this will continue to eliminate
the moq from any academic discourse. The more utterly unrelated,
ill-conceived refutations the better and asshole comments like the above (as
Pirsig would say) make my point for me and make it very well.
Yes, I am just having fun (nose tweaking as you might say) - but you make it
so easy, Dave. Once again, when some pillock thinks he can take the piss
without putting one intelligent observation down, I only give back as good
as I get. Sorry if that causes offence, but this is a forum devoted to
rhetoric rather than a search for truth, is it not??
Struan Hellier
<mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
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 - 16:00:55 BST