Hi Platt,
GLENN:
>Why he thinks the taxonomic method is objective or scientific I
>can't say.
PLATT:
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.
Concerning the part of the MOQ that is the moral taxonomic method,
you supplied Pirsig's claim yourself in a recent post to Struan:
" . . . it is absolutely, scientifically moral FOR
A DOCTOR TO PREFER THE PATIENT." <Platt's emphasis>
You pointed out that the words "absolutely, scientifically" actually
applies ONLY to the doctor-germ case. This is true only in the strictest
literal interpretation. It is surely not what he means. The reason he
says the doctor is absolutely, scientifically obligated to prefer the
patient is because he believes the method that produced this decision
is scientific. The moral decision is grounded on that authority. He is
simply demonstrating how his scientific taxonomic method works in a
specific example. If it applies only for this example, as you say, then it
can't be scientific because it wouldn't be general. Should we believe that
Pirsig thinks the conclusions of any of his other moral examples in the
paragraphs that follow are not scientific or in any way less scientific
than the doctor/patient example, even the unmentioned ones that are less
obvious? Certainly not.
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.'"
The primary definition of hierarchy applies to objects as well.
All else being equal, perhaps the deciding factor should be which is
easier to spell. Taxonomy wins hands down. It's those pesky 'i' before
'e' words that cause trouble for some of us (no names) on occasion.
And no, not you, Platt. You're an excellent speller.
PLATT:
Don't you think "hierarchy" is a more accurate description of the 4-
level structure than "taxonomy?"
No. Either will do. Both need to be modified by the word "moral" to be
clear, of course.
3WD,
Glen,
There's 2 n's in Glenn, big dubble-ya.
3WD:
I assure you it's not a retreat just my current attempt to try and find
some common ground of understanding and in doing so progress.
The common ground you propose is that Lila is great art, but I think that
too is disputable. Do you really want to go there?
3WD:
empirically I find no first person references like "I",meaning Pirsig,
in either book. As I recall in Lila there is the narrator, Phaedrus,
Lila, Riegel, Bill, and a few others who's names I can't recall. Which
one of these is that "Pirsig" who "does a lot more than 'point to
possible' paths for further inquiry." When you pick one, and only one,
as I think most here have in some manner or another have verified that
Pirsig is a single individual,
then please explain to me how you verfied that the "person" you picked
is "Pirsig" and not one of the others. And if you say,"All" how is this
not logically inconsistant? Or are you going to use the "multple
personality" insanity claim and if so, How do you propose to verify that?
There are large chunks of Lila, entire chapters, where the story is put on
hold so he can explain MOQ to the reader. It's a trivial matter to separate
the fiction from the philosophy. I don't understand what you are going on
about.
3WD:
Like members of your ilk I'm not rushing anywhere. I'm willing to
concede some people contend that both books are logically inconsistent,
contain strawpeople, are rigourously unoriginal, and these contentions,
in part, have some merit.
>From my ilk to yours, thanks.
3WD:
While still contending that these claims in no
way totally impune or damage the obvious good or quality contained in
them. This is 'good' futher is evidenced by the initial and ongoing
attraction that even the most ardent detractors cannot deny or they
would not be here.
You're half right. I was a huge Pirsig fan when I joined these forums, and
a steady souring ensued. It gradually dawned on me that the wonderful
relationship I had with his books was a big misunderstanding.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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