I disagree dave, Not about confusing constructivism and solipsism. You make a good point there, but you really seem to miss the point completely when you analyze Lila.
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Bohm is talking about what WE believe. Lila is saying reality is whatever > YOU think it is. Bohm is saying that human beings construct reality. To > equate those two statements is to confuse constructivism with solipsism. > Pirsig says that Lila is intellectually nowhere. And so taking her words as > "the best understanding of REALITY" is intellectually nowhere. That > character is a sleazy, psychotic ignoramus. She has quality, but it is > decidedly NOT intellectual quality. In that scene she's being paranoid, > flakey and evasive. Why in the world would anyone equate her assertions with > the assertions of a great physicist-philosophers?! > Yet RMP did that, in a way. Her assertions stopped him cold, and there's no denying the truth in her formulations, therefore Lila's evasion of encapsulation is a deeper truth than any concrete philosophical system could demonstrate. It was the ultimate mu answer, and Pirsig wouldn't have included it in his book, if he didn't think it had intellectual quality in its own way. > > In my opinion, you misread everything you get your hands on. You make a > mess of everything. You misunderstand the meaning of your own evidence and > use text A to defeat text B, even though both texts actually say exactly the > same thing. You are a butcher and a hack. Your position can be defeated by > simply quoting the dictionary or Wikipedia. Positions don't get much weaker > than that. > > Oops! More projection dave? John 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
