Struan
You're "coming around" observation is spot on. Insomuch as it was Pirsig who
first introduced me, and I suspect many others in this group, to look
seriously into philosophy the response is understandable, but often myopic.
After a few years of stewing privately over Pirsig's thoughts when I got
online one of my first search was to see "What did other "philosophers" had
to say about his work?" As you're aware virtual silence. Now after a six year
"skim" of philosophy with an eye towards similar veins of thought it is clear
that,as you noted, there is a trail of philosophic thought leading from the
pre-Greek to contemporary which closely parallels Pirsig's. Though it has
rarely been the dominant vein it has always been there.
If the question is who did what,when,and who gets the credit; Pirsig
forfeited,from an "academic philosopy" perspective, by choosing to publish his
work in the form he did and the retire from the field. But if the "project" of
philosophy is to provide a viable base for action for "everyman", Pirsig's
"crackerbarrel" approach may have as great a chance for success as any other.
As an architect, another parallel which you eluded to with "You see, I started
off enthusiastically and now look " is the underlying specter of the proposed
death of both the philosophy (Rorty et al) and the architecture "projects." as
we know them. Initially both projects were concieved to be ideally of the
"wide and deep" nature. However as base of knowledge grows it become very
difficult, if not impossible, to maintain this ideal. So what results is
either "wide and shallow-jack of all trades master of none" position or the
"narrow and deep" specialist. So the "wide and deep" becomes untenable and the
same time the tenable we are finding to be insufficient. Thus all the moaning
and whining. But whining and moaning about the potential death of either just
plain silly for the day that man stops either philosophizing or building is
the day the last man dies.
As a layman I'm sure my shallowness permits me to overlook some of the logical
inconsistancies that are present in what you call "the horribly convoluted
hierarchy of levels" and their relationships. But as a "crude map" I've found
it has led me on a meaningful expedition and hasn't dropped me off the edge of
the universe, yet.
I've found this work of Putnam to be both reasonably understandable and
helpful in that it clarifies James "radical empirism", how one can balance
"metaphysical realism" with the transendental nature of metaphysics, and
traces the current directions in the "value" approach to reality.
Thanks for the link,I'll check it out.
DLT
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