Ham, Ron, SA, et al ... I hope Ron and SA patch up their difference. I for one find the poking holes / throwing rocks / darts style of argumentation distincly boring and "old rationality". Difference should be a source of progress not disagreement wherever possible (if people a pragmatically motivated). Anyway .....
Very interestingly Ham, you said > > 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. > I agree with the thrust of your concern about people looking for simple "objective" answers and the frustrated reaction that elicits, but why "unfortunately" Ham, about Pirsig effectively disparaging metaphysics ? For me this pragmatic conclusion is it's value. The fact MoQ is misnamed is an accident of history (something I have remarked several times before) - but it doesn't undermine its quality. Regards Ian 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/
