ian, thanks for your reply.
to your point of 'poor science'. What I am getting at is that Pirsig discusses things(quality) that science can not define. But he does so in such a detailed way that science can not refute. My point is that if SOMEONE were to analyze Pirsig's MOQ using only 'science' they would conclude that there IS a greater circumference of understanding that science lies within, and therefore science can not explain. Or as I put it, sloppily maybe, 'understand'. Jared ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [MD] (jmoq) the preMOQ, the promotion of the mythos,and the shoulders Pirsig thankfully had to stand on > First impression TE ... excellent. > > Method rather than physics - let's focus on the processes rather than > abolsute foundations. Agreed > > Scientific method without understanding is a poor science ... an > indication that science is missing something. Agreed > > Reading Emerson - for a fact ? Couldn't say, but no evidence that I'm > aware of. Given the evidence of how he was "inspired" to MoQ, I'd say > No. If he read Emerson later, he's kept it quiet. > > Ian > > On 8/15/07, TE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Joe, Ron, Ham and anyone else that took part in the "Metaphysics, >> substance, intellect" string, >> >> I would like to put forth a new, more refined version of the same >> contemplation I previously interjected. >> >> My intent is to spark a discussion about philosophy and method. >> [(tangent) imagine instead of "MetaPhysics of quality", "Method of >> Quality"] >> >> (i think) Pirsig, did somthing amazing. He qualified the "mysical" as a >> higher (broader) order of thought than the scientific; many people have >> proclamed this before; but Pirsig, in my opinion, succeeds at making an >> argument within a logic structure that when contemplated using the >> scientific method one could only agree with his conclusion, without >> understanding it. >> >> I am fascinated by the fact that the proceeding was written or' one >> hundred years ago. >> >> "Out of Plato come all things that are still written and debated among >> men of thought. Great havoc makes he among our originalities. We have >> reached the mountain from which all these drift boulders were detached. >> The Bible of the learned for twenty-two hundred years, every brisk young >> man who says in succession fine things to each reluctant generation,- >> Boethius, Rabelais, Erasmus, Bruno, Locke, Rousseau, Alfieri, Coleridge,- >> is some reader of Plato, translating into the vernacular, wittily, his >> good things. Even the men of grander proportion suffer some deduction >> from the misfortune (shall I say?) of coming after this exhausting >> generalizer." >> From "Plato; or, the Philosopher" Lecture >> >> does any one know for a fact that pirsig read and was influenced and >> inspired to fullfill emersons work? >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
