Ok, Dave, besides acceding my "orthodoxy" what's yer problem? And what do you think a myth is, except for "analysis, synthesis and conclusions"?
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:58 PM, David Thomas < [email protected]> wrote: > On 8/28/10 2:35 PM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote: > >[John] > > The vital point is, that when science threw out the control of social > values > > by religion, it did so by throwing out values altogether and we've got > lots > > problems on our hands because of this "pragmatic step". > > I'll grant that I was speaking hastily, and of course it wasn't science that controlled society in the first place. It was those pesky women, the victorians! But other than that.... John > [Dave] > It is easy to interpret Pirsig's work this way because he selects and over > emphasizes facts to support his case while ignoring or discounting facts > that don't. , like most people trying to convince others of the value of > their POV, > > Yes this is one of the central premises of Pirsig's work. You may choose to > accept it as true. A species of good analysis, synthesis, and conclusions. > I > view it more as a myth. An Op-Ed piece based on RMP's experience with > amplifications to frame conclusions in a the light he wishes. > > > 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 > 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
