Kevin and all Metaphysicians:
Kevin's post "In Defense of Philosophy" was about as abstract as it
gets. No one can accuse him of getting bogged down in specifics, that's
for sure. I guess my main question would have to be, "what have you been
smoking and can I have some?" : -)
But seriously, the MOQ is a kind of radical empiricism. It is also a
kind of Pragmatism that begs us to examine the actual results in the
"real" world. To suggest that abstract principles are somehow superior
to specific, concrete details flies in the face of the whole thrust.
Kevin's suggestion that we rely exclusively on induction contradicts the
heart and spirit of Pirsig's philosophy.
It seems like a rather arbitrary suggestion. Why inductive reasoning
alone?
Let's talk about the nature of language, but let's not use words and
sentences. That only leads to bias, clog and corruption. What?
Polite as I can be,
Peace.
David B
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST