Marsha to dmb: Maybe you need a reading lesson, because there was no mention in the RMP quote of 'American pragmatism' being an exception.
Andre: Seems to me that you are being obstinately difficult and cantankerous Marsha. Dmb has provided you (in six posts) with clarifications based on sound rhetoric which neatly tie together and (should) dissolve your concern, which, if I remember correctly is that Pirsig's MOQ be 'confined' to the Jamesian tradition. When Pirsig says that his MOQ 'adds to James' pragmatism and his radical empiricism...the idea that the primal reality from which subjects and objects spring is value' is he thereby 'confining' it to this tradition? I suggest NO! Quite the opposite! As Pirsig says in his introduction to Anthony's PhD: His[Anthony'] purpose 'is to permanently enlarge and improve understanding at the most general levels of philosophic comprehension'. Is the MOQ thereby 'confined' to those general levels? I suggest its opposite. Phaedrus has taken on the entire Western philosophical tradition dating back to pre-Plato times by 'following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in the history of Western thought',...(ZMM, p 231). Does that mean that it is 'confined' to Western thought? Anthony calls the MOQ 'one of the first indigenous forms of Zen Buddhism to appear in the United States' Is the MOQ thereby 'confined' to Zen Buddhism? Or are you suggesting that Pirsig's MOQ arose out of a vacuum, with no 'foundation' of tradition anywhere? Then I would suggest you re-read Pirsigs amendment to the Cartesian statement. 'The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding'.(LILA, p 305) To comprehend the 'embedding' you must have something to 'embed' no? Dmb (and Pirsig) has adequately shown which traditions are contrary and which traditions show similarities. Reading both in the light of ZMM and LILA can greatly aid us in furthering our own understanding of everyday experience(as well as reinterpreting our past experiences). I do not call this 'confining', I call it enriching. Does that mean then that the MOQ is 'confined' to your experience? Your dismissive attitude tends towards that conclusion Marsha, so who is doing the 'confining'? 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
