Re: MD Where does quality reside?

From: Richard Loggins (brloggins@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 15:20:32 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Hello MSH,
     
    msh says:
    "It's generally understood that the narrator of ZMM is the author, a
    thinly-disguised RMP. In ZMM, the narrator has disjointed
    recollections of a character he calls Phaedrus, who we come to
    realize is actually the narrator himself, prior to receiving electro-
    shock therapy for insanity. Agreed?"

    Obviously.
     
    msh says:
    "I bring this up only to help me keep things straight in my own head,
    and to suggest that it's not always wise to make a direct correlation
    between Phaedrus and Pirsig. However, for the purpose of this
    discussion, I'm willing to say that Phaedrus and Pirsig are one and
    the same."

    Agreed.

    rich said:
    Just because it is an assumption to begin the defn of his metaphysics
    doesn't mean hecan't beserious or literal about it.

    msh says:
    "Agreed. But it does mean that he can't prove that it is literally
    true. So the question is WHY would he claim it's literally true when
    doing so isn't necessary to jump-start his metaphysics? When doing
    so puts him in the metaphysically vulnerable position of having to
    claim he's experienced some sort of mystical revelation?"

    msh:
    "If Pirsig believes the literal truth of his assumption, then he has
    left philosophy and lept into mysticism, and should be taken no more
    seriously than any other self-proclaimed mystic. For my own selfish
    reasons, I am reluctant to believe this."

    There you go again. Why do you assume that just because he is literal and serious about his claim that Quality creates actual minds and actual bodies that he has lelft philosophy and lept into mysticism? It does not necassarily follow. Isn't it possilble that he came to this conclusion through an intellectual hypothesis that he finds logically sound, that is no more mystical than the hypotheis that subjects and objects are primary? Further, if a paliontologist claims that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, but doesn't have proof, does this mean, according to you, that he is better off watering down the claim to that of a metaphorical asteroid? Finally, I wonder why you say this claim is unnecessary to jump-start his metaphysics, when by all accounts it, along with the dynamic/static split, were the key insights for him.
    Rich

                            
    ---------------------------------
    Do you Yahoo!?
     Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

    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 : Thu Nov 04 2004 - 15:35:06 GMT