Greetings,
JONATHAN:
"I note that the basis of Struan's attack on Pirsig is exactly BECAUSE
the MoQ fails to provide a set of rules of morality. I (consider?) it
unreasonable
even to expect such rules from the Pirsig since it would be inherently
contradictory and lead only to moral stagnation."
I agree that it is unreasonable to expect this. I wonder if you, Jonathan,
are in agreement with me that the ethical examples in Lila cannot be
reasonably justified and that Pirsig is wrong when he tells us that every
ethical dilemma can be placed into his framework to give us an absolutely
scientific answer, which is binding upon all men for all times?
If I could establish this as the 'official' position of the forum, I would
happily retire and never forward another critique!!!
Glenn. I agree entirely with what you say; just one very, minor point:
GLENN:
"Therefore, I don't see how MOQ defies refutation by Western logic by
claims that it is more art or fiction than metaphysics."
If the moq is not meant to be logical or scientific, it is unfair to apply
logic and science to it. You are undoubtedly correct that Pirsig thinks it
is logical and scientific and it is the job of the logical and scientific to
show that it is not. There is little point in arguing with those who agree
that, "rigorous application of Western logic evaluating "Art" as "Science"
or novels as philosophical treatises will probably lead to fatally flawed
conclusions." This is a very honest and entirely reasonable reaction to
Pirsig's work. It is the irredeemably confused (no names) with whom I am
concerned.
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