Marsha to no one in particular: I ask again: How does William James improve the MoQ? As far as I can see it does not. It just points backwards and has nothing to say about Quality, static patterns, or the hierarchical, evolutionary structure that helps evaluate many conflicting patterns.
Andre: I'd suggest you read chapter 29 of LILA again and I just wonder to what extent you will go to ridicule yourself by offering your ever changing, transparent, static , dogmatic views to question the role of William James in Pirsig's formulation, justification and acceptance of the MOQ in the context of it being presented as 'a continuation of the mainstream of twentieth century American philosophy'. James is at the forefront of this 'mainstream'. The MOQ has incorporated James' pragmatism and his radical empiricism and at the same time improves this by arguing that 'the primal reality from which subjects and objects spring is value. By doing so it seems to unite pragmatism and radical empiricism into a single fabric'. Pirsig was simply checking for himself whether his MOQ wasn't 'a foreign, cultish, deviant way of looking at things'. James plays a crucial role in convincing Phaedrus that he isn't. In fact it tells him he is on the right track and the MOQ is all the richer for it. You do not accept this because you have something against dmb. Sort yourself out Lucy. I'd wish (and I may not be the only one here on this MD)that you'd do the same as Phaedrus...if only sometimes. Remember the tea cup? And for all good measure Marsha: don't bother! 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
