From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 22:00:05 BST
Squonk said:
Yes, i see. You talk a pile of crap you see, so its difficult to read what on Earth you're banging on about half the time. But yes, i see what you are saying. You are saying that it is acceptable to trivialise the MoQ by using it as an analogy to explain something else.
Matt:
Wasn't it Pirsig himself who said that everything is an analogy?
Ah, here it is:
"Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the dialecticians don't know that." (Ch. 30, ZMM)
I would argue that in ZMM, Pirsig is very clear that everything is an analogy, but in Lila he becomes a bit ambiguous. I would further argue that metaphysical expositers of Pirsig (as opposed to my post-metaphysical expositions) are caught by this rhetorical argument from ZMM. Platonic dialecticians can't know that the MoQ is simply an analogy because they are doing metaphysics as it was done by Plato, what Dewey calls that "whole nest and brood of Greek dualisms," what makes Whitehead say we are all footnotes to Plato, what makes Heidegger say that all Platonism is metaphysics and all metaphysics is Platonism.
Matt
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 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 22:00:33 BST