Greetings,
Platt and Jonathan. This is what I meant to say. At the end of chapter 12,
Pirsig tells us that the moq combines 'science and ethics . . . . into a
single system'. Presumably that system is no less scientific than science
and no less ethical than ethics. If this is so, it is entirely reasonable of
me to conclude that Pirsig sees the resolution of all ethical dilemmas to be
absolutely scientific and all scientific study as ethical. So, although I
was lazy in misrepresenting Pirsig by saying he wrote what he did not, and
so a full apology was entirely appropriate, the thrust of my argument
remains.
Elephant. You clearly failed to notice that my question was directed at
Jonathan. That will be why I wrote: "I wonder if you, Jonathan, are in
agreement with me. . . . etc". So, with that in mind, you will perhaps
appreciate that when you answer that question by saying that YOU have been
clear on this issue 'again and again' and, additionally that YOU are,
'becoming quite livid at (my) inability, I should say refusal, to pay any
attention', to YOU, I worry that you have lost - how shall I put it? - a
certain sense of humility.
Also, I can't recall a single word you have sent me in private and have
certainly never used any of it against you. Your website
http://website.lineone.net/~david.robjant/index.html is in the public domain
and you have posted links to it here on at least two occasions. If you don't
want the public to see some of the information contained therein, I advise
you to remove it.
David. Thanks for your kind words. Like Elephant I agree with what you say,
excluding his exceptions. Pirsig's 'moral taxonomy' is what I criticise. If
he had left his musings at a restatement of Plato's 'good', I would have no
urge to refute him. He did not leave it at that. He thinks he has a new
metaphysics which is consistent with science, empiricism, logical
positivism, Darwinism and mysticism and which integrates science and ethics
into one system. If it ain't consistent, it ain't scientific I'm afraid, so
by admitting inconsistencies one is admitting that Pirsig got this aspect
wrong. And yet Pirsig goes to great lengths to show how the moq is
scientific. As I have said before on a few occasions, I am not interesting
in refuting Elephant; my target is Pirsig. Perhaps Elephant will, at last,
take that on board.
Struan
P.S Elephants have tusks, not horns and the trouble with generous bulls is
that they tend to produce generous quantities of bullshit. :-)
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 - 16:00:58 BST