From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 19:41:26 BST
Hi Ian
Yes, I agree with what you add to my post,
it is certainly useful to see Pirsig in a wider
context and acknowledge his particular way
of putting things and the uses these have,
indeed it is hard to know if Pirsig came to some
of this stuff via his own route or if he is mixing
many sources together -a bit of both probably.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: RE: MD A metaphysics - Originality
> 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
>
>
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 - 19:47:01 BST