Matt , DMB, et al, Matt said "It is not just "post-Pirsigian," it is a secular common sense, the kind that looks askance at a lot of philosophy as shooting at invisible ghosts, as criticizing nonsense that we shouldn't waste our breath on. It is a strategic stance about what we should spend our time doing."
Agreed. The reason I was drawn to Pirsig was the fact that it agreed with (and provided a framework for) my secular common sense experience. Still does, if we don't get hung up debating the pointless bits. Which is Matt's point - I was trying to agree with / pre-empt what Matt is saying here. That there are distinctions that matter, but the ones being debated are probably not the ones that matter most. The "should" in Matt's quote above is about value, pragmatic value. (The value in debating how many angels fit of the head of a pin, is in understanding the process earlier philosophers have been through - which is more than philosophology - it has its value - but it's not the stuff of pragmatic real world value. When I say post-Prsigian, I refer to the idea that a bunch of people on this board have already gone through that learning process and should be looking for the pragmatic value now that we've emerged from the other side. A little prematurely obviously, but I always was an impatient bugger ;-) 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/
