My criteria was from my basic interpretation of Khun. [Platt] Finally, the word "paradigm" has a number of different meanings according to Wikipedia. I use the broad definition -- "a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." That the MOQ is a new "framework" should be evident.
I was using paradigm in Khun's sense, as a scientifically (in this case philosophically) accepted viewpoint, law, explanation, framework, etc. For example, gravity is an idea which is scientifically accepted today because it explains phenomenon better than any other existing theory, etc. However, your definition, the idea of just simply a "framework" and not a framework understood as an accepted viewpoint by its respective intellectual experts, works as well, excepting the fact that the word "paradigm" has connotations of self-importance unaddressed in your definition. We should problably just refer to it as a framework, and forget paradigms for the moment. Yes, that makes more sense now. [Platt] Since there has been little "philosophical progress" in the past 2000 years, the criteria of "not fiction" seems irrelevant. Anyway as Jacob Bronoski pointed out, all theories, including scientific ones, are fiction: "Science, like art, is not a copy of nature but a re-creation." I doubt Bronoski would have been happy with the way you butchered his quote. Just because philosophy can be seen as art doesn't mean its breakthroughs should be published in a fictional (albeit risque) novel. Had Pirsig's work been purely in essay form, it would have been much easier to discuss. The problem is that we, as readers, have to see Quality go through several steps. Sometimes be difficult to distinguish the working from the final product. Not to mention the irrelevant autobiographical story Pirsig has us jump in and out of. The problem with Pirsig not writing in essay from is not necessarily the accuracy of his ideas but the fact that very few philosophical expert will want to have to dig through the fiction and thought process to find out what Pirsig is really saying; if Pirsig doesn't bother putting his ideas in essay form, they shouldn't bother listening to him. Those are the main problems with fictional novels as a way to present philosophical ideas to a philosophical community. I'm not saying that all philosophy is in essay form, I'm saying all current philosophy should be in essay form for the reader's sake. At the moment, I won't mention the dronish lack of quality in the moq.org essays (I even saw an essay with a "Works Sited" page). Hilarious. While alternate forms of philosophical expression may be cute, in this case, Pirsig's fiction is an annoyance to the purely philosophical reader. [Platt] Acceptance of the basic tenants of the MOQ by "philosophical society" is already wide and deep in the Orient. Matt's assertion appears to limit itself to western philosophy which Whitehead aptly described as "all footnotes to Plato." So the west needs more time to come around. But it's getting there with Dr. McWatt and the MD leading the way. Acceptance of the basic tenants of the MoQ isn't what I was talking about. Whether Pirsig's philosophy resembles "basic tenants" of Eastern philosophy is different from whether Eastern philsophical society accepts Pirsig's ideas as a whole. I am unaware of any Eastern philosophical scholars that have accepted or even acknowledged Pirsig's writing (Pirsig's actual writing, not views similar to his writing). Hey--Plato was a smart guy. Whether there has been philosophical progress in the last 2000 years is arguable. It certainly has expanded, and "progress" is a fickle, elusive word. Anyways, I doubt Western philosophy will ever come around to something sharing basic tenants with Eastern philsophy. In my opinion, the idea refutes itself. 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/
