From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Mar 25 2005 - 07:10:14 GMT
Matt:
I consider you a true scholar whose ability to analyze and articulate the
logicity of complex ideas exceeds that of the average participant in this
forum, including myself. Having said that, I must add that, based on my
review of the two papers you've posted on moq.org, I find myself in total
disagreement with the positions you have taken.
One of the few things in ZMM that resonated with me (tr. "appreciated") was
the author's invention and definition of the term Philosophology. I don't
have the novel at hand, but there's no doubt in my mind that Pirsig sought
to distinguish the philosopher -- one who creates philosophy -- from the
philosophologist -- one who talks about philosophy as if were a study in
"comparative analysis", and that he not only had contempt for the latter but
wished to be identified with the former. Yet, you appear to have glorified
Philosophology to the point of adopting the very methodology he describes.
You say:
> My actual practice much more resembles the "logical dialectic."
> Which is why I relentlessly attack Mr. Pirsig's distinction between
> philosophology and philosophy. It seems to me
> that you can't help but participate in philosophy when you write about it
> and you can't help but write about it when you participate in it.
A liberal arts student "participates" in philosophy when he enrolls in
Philosophy 101, but his participation in the classroom doesn't contribute to
the advancement of philosophy.
Another point on which we are at odds is your position that the MoQ should
not be rooted in epistemology or ontology -- the basic "sciences" of
philosophy that you and I agreed were the "twin ventricles" that drive
metaphysics. For reasons that I still don't comprehend, you want to
reconstruct the MoQ so as to eliminate its fundamentals. It has been my
position that were the MoQ to have a fully developed, unambiguous
metaphysical thesis, along the lines Mr. Pirsig so competently outlined in
his SODV paper, it might well achieve the academic recognition he clearly
hoped for.
> And by the way, you can't be on the same page as Scott, because I think
> I'm on the same page as Scott (granted, though, we read the page with
> slightly different emphases).
One's philosophical position is more than "emphasis", Matt. I am much
closer to Scott because he believes in a transcendent reality (granted,
though, that he doesn't yet acknowledge it.)
Essentially,
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 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 07:14:27 GMT