> [Platt] > Right. "But that the quality is low is absolutely certain. It is the > primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat > and oaths and self are later intellectually constructed." (Lila, 5) > > I like Pirsig's description -- "absolutely certain." Postmodernists > would rather die than write those words, indicating Pirsig is no > postmodernist. > > [Arlo] > Which only proves how truly ignorant you are of the Great Evils you > squalk against.
Which only proves when you're challenged and can't win an argument, you resort to a personal attack. > But let's consider this. "Absolutely certain"? Firewalkers routinely > walk across burning embers and do not find the event "low quality", > indeed they would describe it as a "high quality" experience. Many > people across the globe subject themselves willingly to "pain", to > things that others might call "low quality", from piercings to > brandings. We can also interject the case of people with no nerve > sensations. They could sit on the stove until they died of burn > wounds and never have a "low quality" perception of the stove. > > What Pirsig is referring to here is "from the vantage point of that > particular person" they determine that the event is absolutely low > quality. It says nothing about "all people and all times". Yes, a > person who finds that event "low quality" will be "absolutely" sure > of it. But all this does is show completely that its all relative. A particular person? Then why does Pirsig write, "Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative." (Lila, 5) Get it -- ANY PERSON. Did Pirsig make another mistake, like acknowledging the validity of teleological theories? Your bending the MOQ to your preconceived postmodernist views is something to behold. > And considering the end of this very sentance, " from which such > things as stoves and heat and oaths and self are later intellectually > constructed", I'd say this firmly places Pirsig into the > "Postmodernist" camp (not that I think there is such a "camp", but > Pirsig aligns strongly with what many so-called "postmodern" writers > have been saying, especially in that "our intellectual description of > nature is always culturally derived" and "we are suspended in language".) I have no doubt that language is a social pattern. If that puts me and Pirsig in the postmodernist camp, so be it. But, that's about as intellectually revealing as learning eyes are sensitive to light. Duh. 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/
