Greetings,
ELEPHANT:
"That is an excellent consideration against my reading. But considerations
are things we consider, hopefully, and I have considered it. It seems to me
that morality corresponds to static patterns of quality, and this entirely
accords with my idea that morality is the application of intellect to the
intellectual formalisation of a reality which is preintellectual, ie Dynamic
Quality. Static Quality is Morality: that's what Pirsig was saying.
Dynamic Quality is not Morality: that's what I was saying. So, no conflict.
Consideration considered."
It might seem like that to you, Elephant, but your position simply isn't in
accordance with the moq. I'm not sure that this can be established any more
categorically so I shall leave it at that.
ELEPHANT:
'The pragmatist charge remains a strong one'.
Again, it has been established beyond the satisfaction of anyone who can
read that you have no idea whether I have a pragmatist charge to answer, so
I shall, once more, leave it at that.
ELEPHANT:
'Now that is hard to beleive, to put things mildly. Your main charge
against
SOM is that the S/O Dichotomy is not a metaphysics. I have asked you to
explain what your premise about metaphysics is, such that the Subject/Object
approach does not constitute a 'metaphysics'. My request here is a simple
request for the premises behind a conclusion I reject. It is very well
summed up in the phrase 'please show your workings'. You have not done
this. Please do not say that you have.'
Well, actually, I have. As you know, there are as many definitions of
metaphysics as there are philosophers, but, as I have said previously, SO
thinking is not a metaphysical position held by anyone in the sense that
nobody makes the first cut of undifferentiated experience into subjects and
objects and then forces all experience into one or other discrete category,
as Pirsig claims. That is my premise, I have stated it on a number of
occasions and I'm not going to expand on it again here, because I have
expanded on it a number of times before. Again, I shall leave it at that.
ELEPHANT:
"Please be aware that I have all the supposedly necessary letters after my
name to see through thistechnique. Don't try it on me."
Oooohhh . . . don't tempt me, Elephant. You didn't even get a first. Looks
like I should also leave this last point at that.
This conversation has reached its natural conclusion and I don't seem to
have said anything new, so I withdraw.
Struan
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 - 16:00:58 BST