Greetings,
Come on Magnus, let us not play silly games.
I could refer you to almost any chapter of Lila but I happened to open it at page 141
(Black Swan)
where Pirsig writes about one hearing a tune on the radio, stopping and listening to
it because it
is 'fantastically good.' If that isn't a description of discerning good from bad then
nothing is,
and there are hundreds more examples.
Your statement that:
"... the phrase "you discern" implies a subject valuing an object, but since good is
more
primary than subjects and objects, there can be nobody discerning anything."
is utterly preposterous. Are you really claiming, "there can be nobody discerning
anything?" Do you
not 'discern' a bad argument when you see one? Do you not 'discern' a good piece of
art when you see
it? Did Pirsig not 'discern' that Lila had quality?
Surely the whole point of the book is as 'an inquiry into morals.' In other words, an
inquiry into
how we discern right behaviour. Like not using capital punishment, etc etc etc.
If you really believe that, "nobody can discern anything," then I can't for the life
of me see what
value the book has for you. You seem to fall into the SOM accusation as a catch all
retort against
anything you 'discern' to be bad metaphysics.
Care to address the question seriously now?
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
