Hi David (Craig mentioned) -- > An interesting exchange, I think we have managed > to understand our differences now.
If only we could understand each other's philosophy ;-) > To some extent I favour Pirsig over Hegel (undoubtedly > the greatest ever metaphysician) for democratic reasons. > Understanding Hegel is much much tougher. Almost an > impossible effort. I, too, am an admirer of Hegel -- for metaphysical reasons, and debated whether to include him in my list of "significant" contributors. Although the writing is often obtuse, his formulation of concepts is impeccable, and I have found his concept of negation particularly useful in my thesis. > But for payoff against effort I'd recommend reading > Pirsig to anyone who is not a fully paid up and addicted > philosophy junky. And once again what I have read of > your thesis it is an impressive achievement in terms, as > Hesse would say, the 'glass bead game', but I doubt that it > will change our world. Thanks for the kind words, David, and for your willingness to discuss our differences without rancor. I think Craig's recent analysis of our debate is right on the mark when he suggests that the core issue is not only what can be explained but what needs to be explained. For me, an explanation of reality is fundamental to a metaphysical thesis. I've enjoyed our discussion also. Have a pleasant holiday season. Essentially yours, 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/
