Hi Matt, I enjoyed reading you blog post:
http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2010/01/discussion-with-dave-buchanan.html I liked the "pluristic monism" notion. In Pirsig's case, I see him as first dissolving dictotomies especially the subject-object one (into a monism), then suggested he nice distinctions such as romantic-classical and static-dynamic (pluralistic monism). I'm wonderring right now whether Pirsig ended up enforcing a dichotomy of his own. Or was he just making a useful distinction between primary/secondary experience and static/dynamic quality? I'd like to read him as suggesting a useful distinction (within metaphysics taken like Kuhnian science as philosophical problem solving) rather than enforcing a dichotomy (traditional metaphysics). I suppose I pretty much asked him that in the letter I wrote him, but didn't get an answer. Clearly Bo takes Pirsig as doing traditional metaphysics such that DQ/sq IS reality. I prefer to read Pirsig as saying Quality is reality. DQ/sq is a nice tool for thinking about reality. I always took DMB to be in the second camp, but I can see how his insistence on the primary/secondary dichotomy from which he criticizes Rorty for getting things all wrong may rather put him a version of "Bo" side of the argument--not anywhere that I should think that DMB would want to be. Best, Steve 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/md/archives.html
