From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 18:01:46 GMT
Glenn, Horse, Matt, John and all philosophers:
Matt said:
..........Glenn continues the thought with saying that Pirsig "belittles"
science, something different from criticism. Horse wants evidence. Well,
Horse, I have to be fairly inclined to agree with Glenn, ...
And in the next paragraph, Matt said:
I would like to think of this case between Glenn and Pirsig as another case
of recontextualization. ... Horse and I are betting on Pirsig. ...
DMB says:
It appears that Matt started out on Horse's side and then "recontextualized"
himself into the opposite position in just a few short sentences. If mental
gymnastics were an olympic event... Just kidding. Actually, I'm sympathetic
with Matt's contribution to the topic; Pirsig's view of science.
It seems pretty clear to me that Pirsig is only doing what nearly every
post-modern thinker has done since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was
published a couple of centuries ago. Namely, he discusses the limitations
and inadequacies of science and rationality. This say belittles science just
isn't accurate. As I'm sure you're all quite aware, Pirsig's MOQ puts
science, along with other intellectual fields, at the top of the heap. As
far as static patterns go, you can't beat it. This is similar to the
attitude of every serious thinker that I've read, all my favorites; Jung,
Campbell, Wilber and many others. I honestly can't think of anyone who
doesn't share this attitude with Pirsig.
On a more trivial note, I have to say that many of Glenn's assertions stike
me as entirely unsupportable. What was the other recent absurdity? That
Pirsig believes in a literal incarnate devil, or something equally silly? It
shakes my faith in medical science to see a brain surgeon hop on board. I
find it hard to believe that he's NOT just Glenn in disguise, but let's
pretend he's real.
John said to Horse:
1) Your belligerent, bullying manner is not only
offensive, but it also stops you from being an
effective moderator of this forum in that it places
ALL of the burden of proof on those who dissent, while
letting those who agree with your version of Pirsig
get away with anything they like.
DMB says:
Look who's talking, ya big bully. And I have to say that the burden of proof
is upon the one making the assertion in the first place. Sheesh. Some
scientist you are! If its evil to imply that someone is stupid, is it also
stupid to imply someone is evil? Yea. I think so. (sighs of exasperation) I
wouldn't mind is somebody changed the thread name to "science in the MOQ" or
something like. I wouldn't mind it if someone wanted to take the topic
seriously, as Matt has done. But these little games belittle philosophy and
the MOQ.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 18:03:24 GMT