RE: MD A metaphysics - Originality

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:34:19 BST

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD archives"

    David (Morey) and all,

    I like this summary.
    I too feel Rorty and Pirsig are very close pragmatically in their non-SOM
    approach.
    (Though having started Rorty with his Mirror of Nature tome I'm only slowly
    getting into him, other than second hand references)
    I also consider Pirsig far from original, except in his creation of his
    patterns of value and levels of static and dynamic quality (MoQ) model as a
    marvellous practical tool or framework through which to view the world.

    Talking of Pirsig's non-originality, for me it is clear how Northrop and
    James influenced him, and that he acknowledges this, but what is not at all
    clear is whether he was really unaware of the existentialists, other
    pragmatists and later schools of thought. Not wrong, but intriguing. What he
    doesn't acknowledge is the extent to which the Aristoleian "Chicago school"
    furore was well documented by Northrop (the book he read on the troopship
    back from Korea) long before his "megalomaniac" letter to the chairman.

    Talking of Northrop, I'm still working through the Meeting of East and West.
    It's a marvellous book. Apart from the MoQ itself, there is little in ZMM /
    Lila that's not in Northrop, and a lot more thorough philosophological
    review of how prevalent world-views came to be. Pirsig does of course
    provide shorter sentences and more dramatic novels though :-)

    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of David MOREY
    Sent: 14 September 2003 16:21
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics

    Dear DMB

    Pirsig is not so original in questioning SOM
    as some people seem to think, but I think
    he does an excellent job of explaining what
    a non-SOM approach is all about in a non-jargon way.
    Rorty is very low on jargon, not always clear from Matt's
    fondness for the Rorty slogans. I have read most of Rorty
    and came to Pirsig afterwards and there is no doubt in my
    mind that they both strongly criticise SOM. Rorty, however, goes
    only so far, he decides that in the ware against SOM it is better
    to consolidate, put up some great attacks on the opposition,
    dig in, and throw a few crumbs to the realist-scientist camp in the form
    of physicalism. Not a bad idea and Rorty is making a case not too far off
    the mainstream. Pirsig goes a bit further, maybe his arguments are a bit
    thinner,
    though this does not mean questionable -just less dug in, of course,
    irsig is way out of the sights of the mainstream despite the early success.
    So well done Rorty. I think the connections to Rorty would do Pirsig good.
    Where Pirsig is no non-reductive physicalist, is a weakness in Rorty already
    discussed by the likes of Andrew Bowie in the UK. Matt thinks Pirsig goes
    too
    far, OK, but he is still on the anti-SOM side by a long way. DMB you should
    do
    some work and read Rorty so that we can pull him futher away from SOM,
    but he is already a lot nearer Pirsig that all the anti-Rorty brigade.

    Regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 11:35 PM
    Subject: RE: MD A metaphysics

    > Matt said:
    > Rorty doesn't talk a tremendous amount about the concept of "beauty", to
    my
    > knowledge, except to say that it is thin, like the terms "true" and
    "good".
    > By thin, Rorty moreorless means undefineable, which pretty much matches
    with
    > Pirsig.
    >
    > dmb says:
    > I doubt it very much. I strongly suspect that "thin" is very much like
    SOM's
    > characterization. He's saying such things are "just subjective". I think
    > this is just one of a hundred examples that show Rorty to be the problem
    > Pirsig is trying to overcome.
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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

    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 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:36:52 BST