JONATHAN CONSIDERS KEITH'S SUGGESTION TO THROW
MoM FROM THE TRAIN
Dear Keith, Richard and Squad,
I had 25 new MD posts this morning! We're certainly dynamic, probably
chaotic, but what does it all mean?
A good part of the raucousness is Fintan's MoM. Either Fintan is trying
to repackage MoQ as a marketing trick, or he is out writing a new
metaphysics, which is very degenerate of him. My interpretation of
Pirsig is that the words quality, value, MEANING, caring, good, (God),
purpose etc. etc. etc. are all basically the same thing. Thus to me, MoM
and MoQ are semantically equivalent. We could equally well call it
MoPurpose, MoCaring, MoGood, in fact "anything you like".
How about it folks ... let's rename MoQ the Metaphysics of Anything
you Like ;-)
But I sense that what is really bothering Keith and others is the Crazy
Celt's ranting style - which makes us suspect his motives. Keith, you
and I are definitely left-brain types - with an anal fixation about
trying to neatly pigeonhole every thought and idea (FINTAN, how does an
anal fixation work when you use half-assed intellect?).
I came into the squad flying the banner of science. This has intensely
irritated some people, particularly BODVAR (see our recent hostile
exchanges). Yet Bo and I basically play by the same rules of logic. I
*enjoy* arguing with him and the dialectical confrontation gives me a
rush (you too Bo my friend?). I suspect the same goes for just about all
the other arguments in the discussions. We're all left-brainers. The
reason we are in the LS is that RPM is mostly one too. ZAMM and Lila
appeal to common sense. Pirsig is pragmatic and sensible, which is what
gives his words meaning (quality).
KEITH said:-
>I don't say this to be mean or condescending, but merely to remind
everyone
>that, unless the rules have changed while I wasn't looking, we're
involved
>in a *structured* discussion of the *Metaphysics of Quality*.
Now along comes Fintan who doesn't always play by our rules. Several
people (including Keith) have said they enjoy Fintan's passionate
writings - which has to mean that there is quality/meaning/value in
there somewhere.
I am flattered that he has hung so much on my contributions about
PATTERNS from last May. Actually, since then, Fintan and I have kept up
a sporadic private correspondence, so I have been exposed to his "MoM"
much more gradually.
Richard wrote:-
<<<<I had with a philosophy professor who wouldn't let
me (or any of the class) argue with him or question him because
we..."don't
have the knowledge or experience." This very man once said to me, "Once
you have a degree from Harvard, then we can talk." I was naturally
outraged.
>>>>
Of course you were outraged. The Prof. insisted that you went off first
to learn HIS rules of conduct.
Till then he wasn't prepared to consider the possibility that you had
something worthwhile to say.
In my "Feeling Good" post of 18th October, I wrote:-
<<<<
I wish I were a poet, and maybe I could write this beautifully. To walk
the map of objectivism is to walk the road and never look over the
fence. How can that feel good?
>>>>
Rick, your ex-Prof. is one of those people who doesn't look aside.
So back to Keith's suggestion to throw MoM from the train ...
I'm not sure that it is completely on the train in the first place.
Maybe a good part of what Fintan is giving us is scenery which we can
choose to enjoy or ignore. But lets also remember that sometimes the
scenery is what makes the journey worthwhile.
Have a Good day all!
Jonathan
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