Hi Dave, > David Thomas said to Arlo: > Is it possible that RMP's quality ideas as presented so scramble our > understanding of experience that we're worse off, not better? Have you ever > considered the possibility that Pirsig's take is wrong in total? > > > dmb says: > Oh, please. You're only confessing your own confusion, Dave. Have a little > humility. It simply isn't possible to know if Pirsig is right or wrong unless > you understand WHAT he's saying. D: I understand that this is your longstanding theory. But if the debate over Dynamic/Static is any indication we will all be dead before that happens. Because I full agree that he made the dynamic/static division and correlated it with James work. But every time I or anyone else try to explain or show examples of why "static" is a bad characterization your response is that we don't "understand WHAT he's saying. What you are really saying is no one except you and the people who agree with you understands what his is saying.
But what about the Oxford metaphysician Strawson surely he has the credentials you require below? He pretty much dismissed the work out of hand. Have you ever ask yourself why no other internationally known philosopher has commented? Like Rorty when I emailed him said he read ZaMM but could recall nothing he could comment on. Why? If it's so great and revolutionary why a Dennett or an E.O. Wilson hasn't commented? Because if they did they would have to make politically nice and say something insubstantial like, "interesting book." > Imagine a person with no background in physics saying the same thing about > Einstein's theory. Don't you think that would be a ridiculous and absurd thing > to say UNLESS that person knew a hell of a lot about physics and understood > Einstein's theory? I think your comments are ridiculous and absurd in exactly > that way. I mean, what makes you think you're qualified to make such an > assessment? Do you have any background in philosophy at all? If so, you're > keeping it well hidden. > D: Oh, so now one must have a PhD in philosophy to even have a chance of understanding what RMP wrote. Guess that leaves you out. All I really should need according to Pirsig to understand quality and reality is life and experience. I mean even an amoeba in acid "knows" it's in a low quality situation, right? I propose you perform a little experiment. Send these statements to broad range of internationally known philosophers and scientists asking if they agree or disagree with them. Human experience consists solely of a series of quality events. All of reality is a hierarchy of discrete moral levels that originate from a series of quality events. Evolution is a teleological process. Quarks have preferences. I'll even let you edit these to put them in a form that concurs with your idea of what Pirsig wrote. But not some pasted quote or complete trashing. But you don't really have to do it because you and I both know that the responses, if you got any, would by and large concur with Strawson's. Dave 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
