From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 00:49:00 GMT
Hi Matt,
On 25 Jan 2005 at 15:38, Matt Kundert wrote:
Maybe I should apologize to everyone if I sounded like an elitist
prick in my recent (or all) posts. I don’t intend to.
msh:
No need to apologize. Not to ME, anyway. I've enjoyed your posts
and the responses to them. The reason I haven't contributed to the
discussion is that I largely agree with you. In my own clumsy way, I
have raised the same objections at one time or another, and Paul, and
DMB, among others, have been most generous in their attempts to help
me through the thicket. They could be right in saying that I don't
get it because I don't get the mystical angle to Pirsig's philosophy;
this may come eventually but, so far, simply saying that the first
cut of Quality results in mind and matter, that Quality creates
subjects and objects, in itself adds very little to the SOM
interpretation of the world. I think an S-O-Q triad is just fine,
and kind of wish Pirsig had left it at that.
However, I don't get all bunged up about my inability to understand
this because, well, I think it's unimportant. That's the pesky
pragmatist part of me. It's obvious that Quality exists and we know
what it is, and Pirsig made me realize this, for which I will be
always grateful. He's also suggested a way to fill a gap in SOM
science which may eventually lift science above it's amoral
evaluations of material interactions and prevent degenerative
scientific developments. Let's hope so.
But mostly I'm indebted to Pirsig for his Moral Hierarchy, which I
view as highly valuable in analyzing our lives and institutions, and
in measuring our evolutionary progress toward "betterness." This is
the kind of tool that takes philosophy out of the armchair and into
the streets.
matt:
I say (and have said in many places) that philosophy isn’t something
we can pin down with any kind of accuracy, we can only pin it down
for our particular purposes and desires.
msh says:
Or, philosophy is only as useful as we make it in evaluating our
particular purposes and desires? I like that.
matt:
Both Paul and Wolff seem to suggest that I’ve stopped thinking. But
where is the evidence for that? And why can’t I suggest that its
everybody else that’s stopped thinking? I don’t think people have,
so why would people think it of me?
msh says:
I don't. Thanks again for your contributions.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." 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 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 00:52:31 GMT