dmb said:
The hero of ZAMM is a rhetorician and Pirsig says the usual conception of
rhetoric is based on Plato's and Aristotle's unjust slander. Basically the
distinction you're making between rhetoric and dialectic is the opposite of
what it means in the MOQ.
Your second point is also completely incorrect. Any kind of metaphysical
position will entail logic. "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and
knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics."
Also the name of your theory, the Analytic MOQ, is an oxymoron because Analytic
Philosophy is the style that most perfectly epitomizes SOM.
With all due respect, Tuukka, it's increasingly difficult to take your comments
and criticisms seriously. Is there anything you could say that would convince
anyone that you're onto something or that you have a valid point about the MOQ?
Thanks,
dmb
a, pre, code, a:link, body { word-wrap: break-word !important; }
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
