Hi Ron -- > SA, > This is an honest inquiry; > I see no reason why this should piss you off, if you don't dig > What's being said then stop reading the thread. > It's certainly no justification for an attack. > > Forget it, laugh away you elitist jerk.
SA is hardly an elitist, Ron. He lives in the woods, considers himself a mystic, and throws darts at us from behind the bushes. Some people get their jollies by taking statements out of context and poking holes in them. There are a several here who apparently skipped Science in school and regard metaphysics as a branch of Physics. They're looking for factual answers about the universe and are frustrated that the intelligentsia in this forum aren't forthcoming with them. Since intuitive concepts are new to these folks, their first impulse is to attack the messenger. They'll quote what Pirsig says on every issue; but, unfortunately, despite naming his philosophy the Metaphysics of Quality, what Pirsig actually said about metaphysics was mostly disparaging. In Chpt. 9 of LILA, for example, he ruminates about Phaedrus (his alter-ego) having been "forced to avoid" metaphysics when writing ZMM: "In his book Phaedrus had tried to save Quality from metaphysics by refusing to define it, by placing it outside the dialectical chessboard. Anything that is undefined is outside metaphysics, since metaphysics can only function with defined terms. If you can't define it, you can't argue about it. ...No matter what position you take on a metaphysical question someone will always start asking questions that will lead to more positions that still lead to more questions in this endless intellectual chess game. The game is supposed to stop when it is agreed that a particular line of reasoning is illogical. But conflicting positions go on for centuries without any such checkmate being agreed upon." In this rare moment of reflection, I think the author revealed his Achilles Heel: the dread of having to confront his challengers. How does he avoid this? By turning to Indian folklore, mythology, and mysticism -- cultural belief systems where logical definitions are not required and where poetry can pass for philosophy. The recent BBC interview with Baggini again demonstrated the author's annoyance with metaphysical questions and his unwillingness to define the fundamental MoQ terms. This has to be a shortcoming for any serious philosopher, let alone one who calls his philosophy metaphysics. But enough about Pirsig. Again, I commend you for your efforts to bring the MoQ and Essentialism into some sort of harmony. I would like to see this, too, although I still feel that such a synthesis would require major modification of the basic premises cited in my previous message. And I don't think either author is willing to do that. (Besides, I won't officially be an "author" until my book comes out; and I can guarantee you it will never make the New York Times "best-seller" list ;-) Cheers, Ham 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/
