Ant McWatt comments:
Well Mr Thomas & Mr Buchanan,
I did get lumbered with Galen Strawson's early review of LILA at the beginning
of my PhD studies. (Thanks for nothing, Mr Supervisor!)
Firstly, though Strawson is largely dismissive of LILA and Pirsig ("like some
nut hanging out at your local library..."), he did conclude by saying that he
might be wrong about the MOQ.
Secondly, my own take with Strawson, Dennett, Rorty (RIP) et al is that they
are/were too involved - at their stages of career - with promoting their own
philosophical "rides" / "pet projects". If they admitted the MOQ had value
then - due to the latter's radical differences with Cartesian based Western
philosophy - they would have had to throw out decades worth of work. I could
see only a very open minded, intellectually strong character do that. And,
anyway, I don't think such a change of mind is necessary with these SOM
dinosaurs as younger academics such as Andrew Sneddon or David Granger have
their own ideas which will become established in their own time on the
international "scene".
Best wishes,
Ant
Dave Thomas said to dave Buchanan, March 1st 2013:
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
