Hi dmb, On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:41 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> > dmb said to Matt: > Think about this way; when Pirsig gets around to the point where he is > explicitly identifying his MOQ with James's radical empiricism, with > mainstream American Pragmatism and Instrumentalism, he also thinks it's worth > mentioning Hegel in order to rule him out as saying something comparable. Why > do you suppose he felt the need to deny Hegel at that point? "The MOQ is a > continuation of the mainstream of twentieth century American philosophy, It > is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which says the test of the true > is the good. It adds that this good is not a social code or some > intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is direct everyday experience." (Lila > 366) > > Marsha replied: > Here's what "reason and evidence" looks like. Notice there is no exception > made for American Pragmatism. RMP (2005): "The Metaphysics of Quality is not > intended to be within any philosophic tradition, although obviously it was > not written in a vacuum. ... The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that > the world is nothing but value is not part of any philosophic tradition that > I know of. I have proposed it because it seems to me that when you look into > it carefully it makes more sense than all the other things the world is > supposed to be composed of." (RMP, 'A Brief Summary of the MOQ') > > > dmb says: > You have interrupted a conversation and changed the subject to dispute a > claim nobody made. Is that what reason and evidence looks like to you? My > claim was that Pirsig identifies the MOQ with pragmatism (while denying > Hegel) and that's exactly what Pirsig does in the supporting textual > evidence, which you deleted from your response. On top of the that your > objection is irrelevant and dishonestly manufactured, I've already addressed > this baseless, bogus point several times. Talk to Mark. He's learned how to > use your malicious nonsense as a rhetorical exercise program. But if the > conversation starts with half a sentence that's been taken out context and > misconstrued (in order to have a debate that's already been had), then I have > absolutely no interest in that conversation. Marsha: Then you made your point badly, because you claimed RMP was "explicitly identifying his MOQ ... with mainstream American Pragmatism and Instrumentalism" when in fact he's stated, as recently as 2005 and it's been pointed out to you before, that "The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic tradition...". You accused me of not abiding by reason and evidence, but I presented clear evidence, which you never refuted. You and Mark can label me, but I need not accept such labels. And Matt can always address you original, but inaccurate, post. Marsha ___ 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
