Re: MD Contradictions

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Mar 19 2005 - 22:08:36 GMT

  • Next message: Joseph Maurer: "MD Re: Pirsig Institutionalized, part I, part II"

    Hi Matt --

    I don't insist that philosophers provide answers to all questions, but I
    can't see how any philosopher can (or would want to) avoid epistemology.
    Unless I've been hallucinating for the last two years, all the discourses on
    Intellect and the kind of data classifiable as knowledge that have been
    going on here attest to the fact that
    epistemology issues are a principal concern of this august group. Are you
    saying they are of no concern to a pragmatist?

    I checked "epistemology" in my trusty Runes Dictionary to learn that J. F.
    Ferrier (Institute of Metaphysics, 1854) was the first to use the term and
    to distinguish it from "ontology" which Runes calls "the science of the
    essence of things". Platt recently quoted Pirsig to me from the Copleston
    notes as saying "Ferrier's first move is to look for the absolute starting
    point of metaphysics in a proposition which states the one invariable and
    essential feature in all knowledge, and which cannot be denied without
    contradiction. For the MOQ this is, 'Some things are better than others'."

    For me, epistemology and ontology are the twin cardiac chambers of
    philosophy, and I care much less about the socio-cultural issues that
    consume what's left of the space in this forum. I'll admit this may be a
    shortcoming on my part, as several have tried to impress me with the notion
    that philosophy means nothing unless "we can do something with it" -- one
    even suggesting that it lead to a Marxist type revolution. I suppose that
    is the pragmatic perspective.

    Considering your narrow view of philosophy's mission, I also regret that we
    won't have the benefit of your intellectual discernment in resolving the
    epistemological holes left by MoQ's author.

    Although I consider it a great loss that you've chosen to dodge the issues
    of major interest to me, I've enjoyed this brief discussion and wish you the
    best in your efforts to "reconstruct" Pirsig's philosophy in a way that
    avoids the metaphysical ambiguity. I hope you have more success in this
    endeavor than Paul Turner and Anthony McWatt, both of whom recently
    undertook similar projects.

    Incidentally, I wouldn't even begin to try to convince the MOQers that they
    are too traditional, but I will check out your "Confessions of a Fallen
    Priest" as soon as I can find the time.

    Best regards,
    Ham

    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 : Sat Mar 19 2005 - 22:48:51 GMT