Matt:
_The MoQ_ has no entity outside of Pirsig: it is _his_ philosophy,
_his_ writing. For Pirsig, or anyone, to say that the MoQ recognizes
it's own contingency, or that it will itself be transcended, is just
to say that _Pirsig_ is a finite, historically situated being. It is
just to remind us of the fact that the system was created by a person
responding to his own personal, unique problems, which as general as
they sometimes may appear to be, may not always be our own problems,
particularly in the new, yet unforeseeable future.
We _have_ to come back to the individual a lot more often than we do
when reading Pirsig. Pirsig himself would seem to suggest it, and the
conceptual machinery is important, but it is _not_ the end, it is only
the _means_, in the bigger picture of life.
Agreed. See Baggini interview:
BAGGINI: ...a phrase you often use, with many variants, is, “The
Metaphysics of Quality says” as though the MOQ was a kind of
philosophical Rosetta Stone and once you had it you could simply read
off what it has to say about whatever philosophical problem confronts
you.
Do you think you made a mistake in presenting the MOQ in such static
terms in LILA?
PIRSIG: The alternative to “The Metaphysics of Quality says,” would be
“I, Robert Pirsig, says,” and that repeated many times sounds worse to
me...If the term, “static” is being used here as it is used by the
Metaphysics of Quality itself, then the answer is, “All metaphysical
systems are static intellectual patterns. There isn't any other kind of
metaphysics.” This is so because the MOQ describes intellect itself as
a set of static patterns.
Notice that Pirsig basically says "The MOQ" = "RMP's philosphy"
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/
