Dave, your exaltedness, I just wanted to point out that more than a few of my earlier contributions to MD were a thorough reading , commenting and posting of Pirsig's Coppleston comments and my responses to those comments. Commenting upon comments, as it were. Too bad you missed that evidently but I ain't gonna re-type.
As to the rest... Well, I'm probably way over my head just discussing the rarified air of your academic genius and at this time I think I'll stick loyally to the road I follow. The low road, admittedly, but my own path. John On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:35 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Mary said to John: > DMB (hi Dave, nice to hear from you again! I was around when you were > first posting and remember), DMB points out, rightly so, that you (and > apparently this Royce) are Hegelists. That's fine, but is not germane to > the conversation. Spare me the Royce quotes unless they relate to the MoQ in > some way. > > > dmb says: > Thanks for the friendly greeting, Mary, and hello to you too. I recently > saw my former college girlfriend, who I hadn't seen for 25 years. We had > lunch. Her name is Mary and, in fact, I thought you might be her. Just so > I'm not too disappointed, let's pretend I was your virtual boyfriend ten > years ago and now we're virtually having lunch. Don't worry, I'll pick up > the virtual check this time. > > I more or less agree with what you're saying to John here but Royce was in > the general neighborhood of pragmatism, or at least he had friends who lived > in that neighborhood. I mean, Royce shouldn't be a problem here and his > ideas might even be interesting in terms of contrasts and comparisons but it > seems that John would need to do a little work to make it interesting. You > know, the make Royce's comments relevant to pragmatism in general and the > MOQ in particular he needs to present some context and some explanations > along with the quotes. Most of the time, I can't really see any point being > made. I suspect that's because he's quite sure what Royce is saying and so > he doesn't really have a point. But he seems like a pretty good guy to me. > He's smart, funny, expresses himself well and he's interested in philosophy. > That's a charming combo, so I cut him lots of slack. > > In this case, for example, I'd say that pragmatism can be mistaken for > Idealism because it is not Realism. It's also mistaken for Realism because > it's not Idealism. Maybe I'm just confessing my own lack of clarity, but I > think it's a pretty easy mistake to make. The difference between Idealism > and the MOQ is so close that Pirsig himself was in agreement Bradley's > descriptions. But only up to a point, right up to the point where Pirsig got > angry about "God" getting smuggled in through the back door. Even though > Royce is not a full-on Hegelian, he is still an Idealist of some kind. And > so maybe those Copleston annotations would be a good place for John to > start. > http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm > Anyway, I wasn't really following this thread and was almost inadvertently > rude. If I missed anybody else's hello, cover for me will you? Tell them we > were having virtual lunch and I got virtual food poisoning and puked up a > bunch of pixels. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/ > 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/ > 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/
