Hi Glenn:
You wrote:
>Why he thinks the taxonomic method is objective or scientific I
>can't say.
Can you point to a paragraph or sentence in LILA where Pirsig
claims the MOQ is "scientific." I've searched until I'm blue in the
face and can find no such reference. Thanks.
Platt
PS: I agree with 3WD who wrote ". . . heirarchy is a better term
because the primary definition of taxonomy refers to 'the
classifying of objects' and I can find no-one who classifies
'morals' as 'objects.'"
Don't you think "hierarchy" is a more accurate description of the 4-
level structure than "taxonomy?"
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