RICK TRIES ONCE AGAIN TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE DOES NOT SEEK A FIFTH LEVEL.
HE THEN HUMBLY COMMENTS ON DONNY'S LAST POST.
Donny-
First, one minor correction. I do not actually endorse any fifth level (as
some of my more recent posts should make pretty clear by now). I only
sought to identify Fintan's problem as semantic rather then structural.
IMHO the 4 levels are quite fine (and this is due in no small part to a
post yourself had previously sent to me).
As for the rest of the "Moral Mess" page, I agree with many of the points
you make, but I can't help but detecting a good deal of hostility in there.
For example, I'm not sure precisely what you and Bodvar were arguing
about, but I don't see how bragging about your "superior" knowledge of Zen
and Buddhism and Eastern religion can logically add to any argument. After
all, it's a common rhetorical proof that the source of a message has
nothing to do with its accuracy (see ZAMM for details). You don't need to
know anything about the formal history of Zen or Philosophy to say
intellegent and accurate things about Zen and Philosophy. Having all these
great credentials doesn't mean what you say is more accurate. If this was
the way arguments were decided why would any of us side with Robert Pirsig
over someone like Oxford metaphysician Galen Strawson? I'm not trying to
deride anyone I'm just saying ---why don't we just stick to logic and
consistency here, and leave the diplomas on the wall.
Rick
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST