[gav] look i think we all know by now that some are on this list to share and > learn, and some are here to argue; this list is, for them, the chance to > argue with pirsig. > > but this list is not about arguing with pirsig; it is not about arguing > with anyone.
But gav, how are you gonna stop philosophers from arguing? It's what we do. What is Philosophy without argument? Let's just please stick to the rules. Philosophical argument is not two static sides lobbing bombs at the other from well-entrenched positions trying to win. The goal of a finite game is to win, the goal of an infinite game is to keep the play going. this list is for those who get pirsig; a number that i am gladdened to see > is rising - though we still desperately need more female voices. Amen brother! But I would think this list would also be useful for those who don't quite get Pirsig but would like to. i am suggesting that we cease to interact when we know the response > beforehand...when we know what reply we will get, when we know exactly where > the discussion will go because we have been there so often before. very > static. > > this is in the interest of all; the try and try again method is obviously > not working and is enervating....it saps the energies that should be used > now to open new ground, not endlessly rehash. > > Well said. Argument should be more than just shouting louder to make your point heard. > i do think this whole process has been valuable though - the endless reruns > have lead to a crystallization and encapsulation of subtle and complex > ideas. this is of benefit to all who are open. > > but we can leave that now - i think so anyway. Some good 'ol reiteration of static latching would be helpful. But it doesn't seem we've gone very far in that direction. Other than Marsha's signature. i would like to move into new territory. i don't think we can make our > descriptions and explanations any more precise or concise....but we can > analogise endlessly, creatively..... > Well, I'm game. I have a point to make about your "descriptions and explanations" which I was going to make in a new thread, but heck, may as well introduce it here. The best time to prune an apple tree is when you've got the shears in your hand. The branch of Philosophy concerning first things, or fundamental things is "metaphysics". I think we get screwed with the 4 levels when we put them under this heading. The four levels are not fundamental in the metaphysics of Quality. They are an intellectual tool, a philosophy of quality, that can be analyzed for its usefulness and utility and ... quality. That difference seems crucial to me in analyzing schisms of the past (not that I've done THAT in any comprehensive way). Thus in my proposal, the truth that Quality is real is a metaphysical foundation and the four levels are a philosophical outgrowth of the highest quality - a Philosophy of Quality, if you will. With understanding and adoption of the underlying metaphysics, perhaps even a Religion of Quality might evolve someday. For as J Royce mentions, humans have need of religion and philosophy, each in their appropriate realms. idealistically yours, John 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/
