Hi Platt,
PLATT
> Oh I noticed it all right. It proves my point. To bolster your arguments
> you will use Pirsig's "explicit" statements or his "subtle rhetoric"
> (implicit, implied statements), depending on which suits your purpose.
> A neat trick. I'm learning.
RICK
Sorry Platt, there were no tricks here.
NOWHERE did anyone (including myself) ever say that 'beautifully subtle
rhetoric' means 'implicit/implied'. You just made that up! Ironically
enough, you IMPLIED it from my use of the term 'subtle'. Proving once again
that you are only capable of responding to positions that you yourself
invent.
As I said last time, Pirsig EXPLICITLY wrote the words, "...given a
value-centered MOQ....". He EXPLICITLY qualified the paragraphs with the
term, "In general...". All I meant by 'beautifully subtle rhetoric' was
that the passage was well written but must be carefully read or one could
too easily miss the '...given a value-centered MOQ..." qualifier... Which is
exactly what you missed!!!
You seem to read that passage as if said..."But what's not so obvious is
that it is absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the
patient." But this kind of statement of an absolute truth is exactly what
Pirsig was trying to avoid by placing the qualfier into the line (that's why
people use qualifiers Platt, to avoid statements of absoluteness). You
cannot simply read terms out the text when it suits your purposes. You have
to deal with what is actually there... You seem to have a real problem with
this notion.
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 - 16:01:52 BST