Andre and y'all: Thanks, Andre, but I think you might be giving Marsha's question more credit than it deserves and I seriously doubt that she's seeking any real answers. In fact, the question is quite phony. It implies that someone has claimed that James can improve the MOQ. If anyone made that claim, they really should answer questions and otherwise feel obliged to defend it. But nobody made any such claim, of course, so she's dealing in straw men here. If anyone else had made such a claim, I probably would have noticed.
What James and Dewey and pragmatism can do, I think, is improve a person's understanding and appreciation of the MOQ. Pirsig really is quite sympatico with these guys and a person can learn quite a lot by looking at the way they handle the same issues and ideas. It's like looking at the same object from a different angle or looking at it in a different light. And since one of the main purposes of this discussion group is to improve one's understanding and appreciation of the MOQ, Marsha's objections to William James have no philosophical or intellectual merit. They defy Pirsig's own claims in LILA, as you point out. Her objections to James don't even qualify as good common sense. Since the claim was made by a straw man, Marsha can hold her breath and wait until he answers. > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:19:00 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [MD] W.J. Eastern influences > > 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 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
