Greetings,
My thanks to the member of the squad who forwarded your posting to me DLT. I had 'unsubscribed' for
lack of interest in the current thrust of the work here. In particular this talk of a fifth level
seems so far removed from any reasonable discussion that alt.aliceinwonderland. meta.fantasy seems
sane in comparison. Still, talk of Putnam has stirred me from my slumbers and your posting takes us
off on a tangent that serves as one of my main reasons for considering unsubscription (if you will
forgive the phrase) to be a tad previous.
Putnam is a very interesting case, having been a card carrying realist until about (correct me if I
am wrong) 1975. At this point he rescinded his past position and embarked upon the path illuminated
by your excellent quotations.
Initially it is so nice to see Aristotle treated properly. Putnam writes:
"we should recognize that ALL VALUES,
>including the cognitive ones, derive their authority from our idea of
>human flourishing and our idea of reason. These two ideas are
>interconnected: our image of an ideal theoretical intelligence is simply
>a part of our ideal of the total human flourishing, and makes no sense
>wrenched out of the total ideal, as Plato and Aristotle saw."
After all the misinterpretation in ZAMM and follow up work here this at once purifies the air of
some of the more bizarre accusations against Aristotle. Springing from this and closely related to
it, it has always struck me as rather odd that so many here write of academics with phrases such as,
"SOUNDS LIKE HE MIGHT BE COMING AROUND," when Putnam was saying these sorts of things a quarter of a
century ago. 'Coming round' (presumably you mean to 'our' way of thinking) is indicative of the 'us
and them' attitude that has held this forum back for so long. The brute fact is that many have
subscribed to this general point of view for a considerable period. If anything Pirsig, and those on
this forum (including my young self), are latecomers and it always strikes me as odd that so many
here, upon finding something which backs up parts of what Pirsig tells us, then conclude that they
must be 'Pirsigian.' Even the Pope, when all he did was restate 2000 years of Christian tradition!
To the point of your question and for what it is worth; I rate Putnam very highly, although I think
his position modifies metaphysical realism rather than disposes of it. I shall not bore you with the
reasons why here for fear of attracting the anti-intellectuals and distortionists. Those few who are
interested can point your browsers at; http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~hchandle/Bealism1.html for a
reasonable appraisal of why this might be the case. It is a great pleasure to read these opinions
without the horribly convoluted hierarchy of levels and general paranoia endemic in Pirsig's
writings and I am grateful to you for bringing this particular set of essays to my attention David.
Although familiar with some of Putnam's work I had not seen these and will look into them. My final
point is to reiterate that there are many, many philosopher with whom a 'valuite' would concur.
Perhaps at some point I should set myself the task of putting together fifty or so such philosophers
and submitting a quotation from each to make my point, but then again if people were interested they
would do it themselves. You see, I started off enthusiastically and now look . . . . . . . . :-)
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
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 - 16:03:13 BST