Gary,
I'll try to respond to the issues later, but meanwhile I need to clear
this up.
>>
>>Sorry, but I've done all the "what did Pirsig *really* mean"
>>argumentation over this issue that I'm going to. Since he isn't
>>infallible, your comparison to Talmudic disputation is rather grotesque,
>>in my opinion. (And, of course, the Devil can quote Scripture).
>>
>
> GARY'S RESPONSE: Not sure what you mean by "your comparison to Talmudic
> disputation is rather grotesque...." Why? What and by whom have you been
> taught about the Talmud? Were those people perhaps bias against Judaism?
I did NOT say or imply that the Talmud is grotesque. My opinion is very
much the opposite, I think it is a magnificent achievement. What I
consider grotesque is the idea that we should apply the same extremely
painstaking inquiry into the writing of Pirsig as the Talmudists did to
the Torah and Oral Law. To be that painstaking toward writing considered
divine and infallible makes sense. Not so with Pirsig. Yes, we should
make an effort to paraphrase him (or any one we are talking about) as
well as we can, but -- like I said -- I've done all the "what did Pirsig
*really* mean" argumentation over this issue that I'm going to.
- Scott
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:19 BST