Greetings,
Kevin, your posting is utter nonsense.
It isn't a case of specifics illustrating general theory. It is a case of helping
define what they
are. To remove 'everyday' empirical evidence from metaphysical discourse is Noddy land
stuff. One
might as well claim that my cat created Jupiter and, without recourse to specific
experience, (i.e.
looking at my cat in the context of Jupiter), that claim is as valid as any claim for
the veracity
of a MoQ.
Weed out the empirical and you weed out any semblance of intelligent discourse.
"But can one really argue that a debate, for instance, on
MOQ's stance on religion or capital punishment or abortion tests the
validity of our theory."
Absolutely. Indeed, it is the ONLY valid test. If a MoQ cannot be tested in this way
then it is, for
all conceivable intents and purposes, utterly worthless. As soon as theory is removed
from practice
all we are left with is linguistic analysis which, important though it is, is one of
Pirsig's great
hates and seems to defeat the whole point of his work.
Surely we aren't going to relax our already tenuous grip on reason and float off into
some imaginary
realm of 'concepts' divorced from reality. Whatever next?
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
