Pardon me for jumping in so soon - I only joined this list today - but I
feel like I've been bottled up for a long time - having read ZMM in 1981
and bursting to discuss it ever since. I was so eager to get my hands on
Lila that I actaullly went and bought it hardcove. So
forgive any newbie ignornaance as I leap into the fray. Cheers to all and
glad to be here!
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, David L Thomas wrote:
(snip)
> That being said and understanding that this site is dedicated to the
> discussion of Pirsig's work; How does it futher the understanding of his work
> to isolate his work from all other philosophy? Are we to claim that the MoQ
> was created by "divine intervention" or that Pirsig's work appeared on a
> "blank slate" with no influence from prior philosophies? We know from his
> writing that many, if not most, of those ten-jillion slips were references to
> other peoples work that he read extensively in preparation for writing.
>
> Platt, I believe you would agree that is reasonable to say that the MoQ is
> moral or meta-ethical philosophy. So let's ask a moral question.
I don't know Platt and I certainly don't know any professional
philosophers personally, but it seemed pretty obvious to *my* reading of
the two books that MoQ is not a philosophy. How could it be? Note the
name "Metaphysics of Quality" - as opposed to "Philosophy of Quality".
Koan for the day: If it was possible to have a philosophy of quality, by
what would we judge it?
I would have thought that the whole centerpiece of MoQ is that value is
primary.
> Is it ethical to write philosophy and publish it in the guise of novels?
Begging the assertion that MoQ is a philosophy - isn't Philosophy
basically the invention of a character in a novel by Plato?
Pirsig's work isn't determined by where the book clerk in Borders places
it (yup, I've certainly found it in the Automotive Section) where it
belongs is determined by what it says. Any words that question the
basis of existence are usually termed "Philosophy". No matter how
those words are transported, packaged or categorized.
> Here are the patterns of value we need to morally adjudicate.
>
> 1. The cards are stacked against him,
> 2. He refused to "play the game"
> 3. Wrote two books that were published, promoted, and can be read as "novels"
> 4. He defends his work, in part, as original, serious, philosophy.
>
> But the kicker is this approach avoids the need to accredit any sources. After
> all it's only FICTION!
>
> The criteria we would like it to meet is "If everybody did this would the
> world be a better place."
>
> DLT
I can agree with your first three statement. I don't know what you mean
by moral adjudication. Pardon me if I make a hasty judgement here, but
your whole message seems imbued with a moral tone (disaproving of "novel"
and FICTION!) carries a whiff of somebody upset about the overturning of
the moral order. I think I can understand that. In fact, a great deal of
Lila seems to be a resonse to this victorian antiphathy to MoQ. I believe
since the author himself addressed this conflict extinsively, nobody would
gain by my feeble reiteration, except I'll tap into my Libra need for
balance and commiserate a bit...
Pirsig is unfair. He actually didn't invent any interesting new
philosophy which we can compare with our old philosophy. He offered us no
advancement in Philosophy. Instead he introduced a dead end to
philosophy - sort of tricky philosophical jiu-jitsu
that overthrows all philosophical positions held. For whether or not
any philosophy is "good" You can't judge "good" by anything else.
So what the heck do you guys usually talk about anyway?
jc
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