[Lurk mode off]
Hello Struan and Jonathan and everyone else as well-
Struan Hellier wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Jonathan was kind enough to send me a copy of the post he submitted to the
>other forum last month in
>which he wrote:
>
> > Some of Pirsig's detractors (e.g Strawson, our own Struan) would say
>that
> > Pirsig's SOM is a strawman, since SO thought was never really a
>metaphysics
> > anyway.
> >
> > This is more a semantic than a substantive disagreement.
>
>Whilst he is right that one of my objections to SOM is that the M is
>misplaced - of that I am as
>certain as I am about anything - I don't see why Jonathan attempts to
>dispose of the argument as
>semantic and not substantive. I always considered semantics to be highly
>substantive. In fact the
>word 'substantive' itself is a very interesting choice in this context
>don't you think? Perhaps I
>could invite Jonathan to clarify just what the objection is.
Hi Struan and Jonathan
Are we not getting back to substance and form with this argument? What is
going on here?!
>
>JONATHAN:
>"If Pirsig's MoQ is really good, it should help us to understand what makes
>GOOD ideas good and BAD
>ideas bad."
>
>Now that I like, best point I've seen for a while and it would make an
>excellent question. I would
>(and have) cut it down and asked simply, 'What makes good, good and bad,
>bad.' In fact that question
>is the main reason I am here, although I despair of finding the answer.
>However, if the above
>invitation appeals to more people then that must be good.
Struan and Jonathan
You are both suggesting that we use conventional morality to explain Robert
Pirsig's MoQ. In his metaphysics there is only one perceived evil, exclusive
stasis. Good and bad are concepts arising from one conventional moral code
but we take them to mean everything and would continue to do so if we put
those concepts back into the MoQ.
Good is implied in ideas. When we first have an idea we have no clue if it
is a good idea or a bad idea. Only in retrospection is that idea determined
as good or bad. That is intellectualizing. What is good and bad? Tell me. I
work as a health care worker, specifically with one client, a 32 year old
autistic man. He has no language skills yet he communicates. He has ideas.
Is it bad to be autistic? I know my client could not answer that question
since he has no frame of reference to work from. Let's keep that in mind
here too. We are discussing frames of reference.
Good and bad are conventional frames of references.
>
>JONATHAN:
>"So what does MoQ really say about SO thought (as I understand it)? SO is
>GOOD for fixing
>motorcycles, healing the sick, building roads and dams etc. etc. SO is BAD
>or even dangerous when it
>is pursued without regard to non-SO concepts like intuition, emotion and
>ethics."
>
>Agreed. But does anyone actually fix motorcycles without emotion, or heal
>the sick without ethics,
>or design and build a damn without intuition? Of course not! This is a
>message that is, on the
>surface, quite profound, but deep down it is very superficial.
As I understand it, Pirsig tells us in his various writings that he
considers subject/object thought as deterministically separating our bodies
from the rest of our environment. From this subjective base one is able to
objectify all objects. Call them good and bad. Which, as I said, you both
seem to be suggesting that we do in our mutual attempts at furthering our
understanding of the MoQ.
I disagree. And I am surprised at you both. This is indeed very superficial.
I've come to expect more from you.
>
>Not, I hope you will agree, merely a semantic point, by any definition of
>which I am aware. :-)
>
>Struan
>
>------------------------------------------
This I can agree with.
[lurk mode on]
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST