Denis-
I liked your essay alot. There are (inevitably) a few minor points I'd
quibble with, but otherwise I think basically agree with your take on the
MOQ/SOMs relationship (as you may have noticed, I particularly liked you
suggestion that 'SOM' be replaced with 'SOMs' to dispel confusion about the
term being related to some single philosophy or specific metaphysics.
One question though:
you wrote....
"...And so SOM, that DID defend the right of an individual to spin his own
story
in spite of everybody else (provided it bowed to that new God, Truth), won
the fight against those who thought Arête meant social status.
Huh? Is this to imply that the Sophists are the ones who though Arête meant
social status? If so, this would seem to directly contradict Pirsig's
evaluation of the Sophists in ZAMM in and around p.338-340.
Because despite the romantic view of the Sophists that ZAMM offers, 'Lila'
makes it
clear that they were morally *inferior* to Socrates and Plato, then."
I was wondering where you get this from? I don't remember ever reading such
an assertion (either explicit or implicit) in LILA. It also seems to clash
strongly with Pirsig's take on the Sophists in ZAMM. How could the Sophists
(the proponents of Arête/Excellence/Quality) be less moral than the
Socratics/Platonics (proponents of Truth)?
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:39 BST