[Ian] I've tried and get roundly shouted down by the baying mob of Pirsig bulldogs.
[Arlo] For someone who cries "straw man" with almost every post, you sure seem to rely on them a lot. I can't speak for other "bulldogs", but if you're implying that demands for coherence, clear and rational articulation, and explanation, are somehow "bulldog" tactics, you're way off-base. I mean, c'mon, how can you do philosophy, GOOD philosophy, without these things? These are the very things that Pirsig took the time to craft into his metaphysics, why do some think they are a prison they must cast off? Do you think DiSanto's book lacks coherence? Granger's? Crawford's? Pirsig's? Do you think any of these authors violate the basic intellectual qualities that really form the foundation of a philosophy discussion? [Ian] I really hoped the bulldogs might have had an epiphany. [Arlo] And I really hope those who seem to confuse an expanded rationality with anti-rationality have an epiphany. And I'm beginning to think this includes you, Ian. I mean, with every post you seem to reveal support for the "intellect=SOM" mistake, as you seem to confuse basic intellectual quality with 'scientific objectivity', ideology and 'scientism'. Like Marsha, you seem to think that any attempt at coherence or clarity is 'reification' that just shows how square and ungroovy us academics are. [Ian] Even after we've had Paul pointing out the two contexts within the MoQ we still get one shouting down the other. [Arlo] Rather, we get people who have latched onto this rather literally and are using it to justify two 'competing' views rather than understanding their symbiotic and synthetic co-occurence as, I think, both Pirsig and Northrop would've hoped. 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
