From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 00:11:30 BST
Matt, Steve and all MOQers:
dmb says:
Hmmm. The plan was to answer some comments that addressed me, but then I
noticed a trend. I hope to get back to the more serious response soon, but
thought I'd have a little fun first. Maybe you can see the pattern too. (Or
the lack of one.) In a single post...
Matt said:
... we can and should call DQ an assumption. But that doesn't get the
effect that DMB wants and Pirsig, I think, wants.
Matt said:
I think people are very confused but what I was trying to do in my series of
posts. I was attempting a reconstruction of Pirsig's philosophy from his
texts.
Matt said:
I interspliced periodically what the pragmatist thinks about some of the
claims I think Pirsig is making, but the purpose of the posts was to get at
what I think Pirsig thinks he is doing.
Matt:
My efforts in these last series of posts were to show why I don't think
Pirsig has assimilated pragmatism, why he is neither post-pragmatist or
post-metaphysical.
Matt:
I never made any claims about Pirsig being wrong. Any such claims would be
question begging. As I laid out, I was explicating Pirsig's position and
noting the differences between his position and the pragmatist's.
Matt:
Again, I think people are misunderstanding what I was up to. My main
project was an explication of Pirsig's system and then what kind of
consequences it would lead to.
Matt said:
My effort was to show that a Kantian Pirsig does exist.
Matt said:
My efforts in doing _philosophy_ with Pirsig (as opposed to biography) is an
attempt to purify his greatest insights of the metaphysical baggage, which
is simply Kantian conceptual debris.
dmb says to Matt:
Let's see. You are trying to reconstruct and show the consequences of a
Kantian, non-post-pragmatic, non-post metaphysical MOQ - with a fully
pragmatized version DQ to boot. And this is supposed to get at what Pirsig
thinks he is doing. And you're sincerely perplexed that people have
misunderstood this? Maybe its me. Maybe these comments only SEEMS confusing
and full of contradictions to stupid people like me. Or maybe the various
claims about the aim of your essay did not constitute a contradiction and
that, instead, you've attempted to do all those things at once. If that's
the case, then I'd argue that the cause of the confusion is still no
mystery. Its a bit too much to juggle at once. To add to the confusion, I
was foolishly operating on the assumption that the whole thing had something
to do with question begging, moral intuitions and answering the Nazis.
Stupid me.
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 Oct 19 2003 - 00:14:54 BST