[Matt] > 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.
[Matt] > 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. Ok. To agree on word meanings always helps to move discussions along without getting bogged down in misconceptions. As Ayn Rand used to say, "Define your terms." > [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." [Matt] > I doubt Bronoski would have been happy with the way you butchered his quote. How did I "butcher" his quote? He is merely citing the difference, as Pirsig does, between a menu and food. [Matt] > 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. Quality is not something you have to struggle to see. It's right in front of your face all the time. Quality is existence, experience, reality. [Matt] > 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. I don't know what "readers" you have in mind other than yourself. Nor do I know who you mean by the "philosophical community," as if there is some sort of exclusive club for those interested in ideas. As for having his philosophy in the form you prefer, I presume you are familiar with his SODV paper. [Matt] > While alternate forms of philosophical expression may be cute, in this case, > Pirsig's fiction is an annoyance to the purely philosophical reader. To you, perhaps, but not to me. I thoroughly enjoyed "Brave New World" and "1984." > [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. [Matt} > 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). Misused "tenants." Those are people who rent. I meant "tenets," meaning principles, beliefs, or doctrines generally held to be true, not necessarily "actual writing." I can't find the specific reference, but somewhere Pirsig said that in the Orient his metaphysics is greeted with a ho-hum, so what's new? attitude. [Matt] > 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. I think your conclusion is arguable. But, perhaps for another day. 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/
