From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 01:04:48 BST
David M,
> One tactical reason for this possible slant is
> that a lot of what Pirsig is about is saying we
> don't have to accept the concepts of SOM
> & can see things via a different schema.
I'm not sure I understand, but as I see it, Pirsig's quasi-nominalism, so
to speak, is in my view not an escape from SOM but indicates continued
captivity by SOM, at least its materialist, Darwinian form. The materialist
must assume nominalism. Pirsig allows for a real, non-materialist,
intellectual level, but by assuming that it came into existence from a
universe without intellect, he is still somewhat in thrall to that
materialist mindset.
Even if one wants to keep to a temporal story, which in a way we have to,
since we cannot imagine eternity, it is possible to speak of intellect
before there were people, and without positing an anthropomorphic Designer
God. On the biological level, instinct acts as a conceptual realm by which
the animal can react to particulars. An animal may have never encountered
some other animal before, but instinct -- a set of generalized patterns --
will get it to flee or chase. And on the inorganic level, physical law is a
conceptual reality that the physical things will always follow (though who
is to say that physical laws haven't changed over the eons).
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 01:50:40 BST