Hi Krimel, > [Krimel] > Again, sorry for butting in Dave T. but this was just too funny. > I think the guy should get his own show. Oh he used to have one on a local public radio station as I recall. My guess is that in his heart of hearts he would love to be a Liberal Rush.
> You? Well I just think it's odd that Pirsig doesn't address "conscious experience" or consciousness" in any substantial way since it has been a central issue surrounding "experience" for a long time. DMB's pointing to James for RMP's answer I believe, as he so graciously posted, is "disingenuous." But it is more than that. Channeling all of James' work thru RMP or visa versa is fraught with problems because their positions on so many fundamental issues is completely opposite. This is a partial list started for another post I never sent. RMP-James Monism-Pluralism Anti-Theist-Theist Quality source of Moral Order-God source of Moral Order Whole divides into parts-Parts conjoin to create whole. Reductionist-Expansionist If you do the same with Chalmers. RMP-Chalmers Monist-Dualist To claim that RMP's work unites all these positions seamlessly is delusional. I added the "Reductionist" to Pirsig because if you are going to reduce all of reality to "Quality" doesn't that make you the ultimate reductionist? The more I consider "philosophy", in Rorty's context as a type of literature, the more I think it creates far more problems than it solves. As I noted in an early post to DMP, I'm with Popper in that it really creates problems when it strays too far from its original roots of integrating the data of science into a comprehensible whole. In my mind things like "political science" and "political philosophy" are oxymorons of the crudest type. Dave 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
