> [Platt] > Well -- at last. You admit you disagree with Pirsig's including teleological > theories within the MOQ. I was wondering if you would ever get around to that. > > [Arlo] > I don't make any claims about not agreeing with Pirsig on several accounts. > But > I am still wondering, if all these "teleological theories" are correct, that > just proves purpose is relative. What's funny is that someone who ignores half > of what this man wrote thinks that catching me disagreeing with one sentence > is > revelatory. But whatever.
> [Platt] > All Pirsig is proposing is evolution towards greater versatility and freedom. > The other stuff you imagine is just that -- your imagination. > > [Arlo] > Ah, so THIS teleological "purpose" is right and others are "imaginary". Guess > in addition to your volitional and intentional Quali-god, you now have a > Quali-religion. Good luck with that. You insist on showing your ignorance of the MOQ by charging it with a Quali- god and as a Quali-religion. "It would seem at first appearance that Quality might be an equivalent of Spirit, but this would be an enormous mistake. Quality is spiritual only to the extent that motorcycles and sausages are spiritual." (Pirsig, Copleston Papers). But I'm sure you consider your peewee as spiritual. 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/
