Greetings Struan,
An interesting post. I am not all that familiar with the essay to which you
refer (although I think I did look at it on the MoQ web-site - I asume that
this is the one to which you refer, you don't give a clear reference) and I
certainly can't comment on the personal allegations. However, there is
something I would like to take you up on. You write:
> More concerning still is Anthony's continued insistence, typical of this
> forum, that the moq is original in placing value as the fundamental
> ground stuff of the universe. Contrary to the popular and simplistic
> belief prevalent here, which considers Pirsig to have invented some
> brilliant new way of looking at things, the original meaning of Idealism
> was ('Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy' - London - 2000 -
> pg 379):
>
> 'any view for which the physical world is somehow unreal compared with
> some more ultimate, not necessarily mental, reality conceived as the
> source of value, for example Platonic forms'
>
> I would invite those who are interested in taking philosophy further to
> explore the work of.....
IMHO Pirsig is not an idealist in the formal sense you describe. In
particular he does not believe that the physical world is unreal - his
discussion of 'pre-intellectual awareness' is I think the largest stumbling
block to placing him in that camp. He does not doubt the continued existence
of a reality independent of the observer. The MoQ, it's true, does provide
for an intellectual categorising of that reality, but it does not say that
all reality is constituted by the perceptions of the intellect. Things at
the intellectual level, perhaps, but a rock exists at the inorganic level,
whether or not there is something intellectual around to perceive it or not.
Of course others here might disagree. The joy of the forum is that it tests
your views. So when a statement descends from on high like "Contrary to the
popular and simplistic belief prevalent here..." we have a chance to put it
to the test, and establish whether the statement is correct, or whether in
fact the person making that statement is indulging in a simplicity of
belief. (and also perhaps, in our quiet moments, wonder why someone who had
that understanding took precisely *this* approach to putting their views
across).
As it happens - as recently discussed with Angus - I also don't think Pirsig
is entirely original in placing value at the centre of his metaphysics,
although he was significantly original in the way in which he describes it
and works out the implications. (Much of an argument like this would
eventually descend into quibbles about words). I think there is quite a
significant overlap with what a number of medieval mystics believed, except
they talked about Love not Quality. But none of those could be brought
happily within mainstream Western philosophy, and nor - IMHO - can Pirsig.
You might like to think about providing a more substantive justification of
your views for people to consider. (Most especially your point "3) He claims
that Pirsig has an original view of the ontological primacy of value. He
does not and to claim that he does is risible." Investigating that point
would be worth a thread in and of itself.)
Cheers
Sam
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 - 16:01:40 BST