Hi Struan and Group:
It would indeed be a loss to the group, Struan, should you decide to
unsubscribe permanently. As the only resident academic philosopher
among us that I�m aware of, you bring a unique measure of
scholarship and erudition to our discussions.
Not that I necessarily always agree with your views. Often I get the
impression that you�re not ready to welcome Pirsig into the club of
�serious� philosophers nor do you suffer gladly those who, like me,
consider themselves Pirsigians. In fact, your low opinion of Pirsig was
surprisingly frank in your post of Oct.17 when you wrote:
�It is a great pleasure to read these opinions without the horribly
convoluted hierarchy of levels and general paranoia endemic in
Pirsig�s writings and I am grateful to you for bringing this particular set
of essays to my attention, David.�
Convoluted hierarchy of levels? Endemic paranoia? Obviously you
sees things in the MOQ that I don�t, perhaps because I�m one of the
unschooled �anti-intellectuals and distortionists� you find on this site.
Unfortunately, you have never to my knowledge offered an extensive,
reasoned critique of the MOQ such as submitted by John Beasly and
other writers in the Forum. I wish you would. I would like to see what
assumptions you subscribe to in finding fault with Pirsig�s philosophy.
Your argument in your Oct.17 post seemed to be not so much that
Pirsig is metaphysically way off base, but that he was not the first
philosopher to acknowledge values. You summed up this view by
writing:
�My final point is to reiterate that there are many, many philosophers
with whom a �valuite� would concur. Perhaps at some point I should set
myself the task of putting together fifty or so such philosophers and
submitting a quotation from each to make my point, but then again if
people were interested they would do it themselves.�
Well, yes. Almost all philosophers acknowledge values, morality and
ethics to some degree. Most, however, restrict their thoughts about
moral matters to how people ought to behave. None that I know of took
the concept of values and based an entire metaphysics on it as Pirsig
did. Hilary Putnum admitted, �I am not, alas, so daring as this,�
acknowledging by implication that no other philosopher has ever dared
either.
The only Western philosopher I know who, besides Pirsig, puts
morality at the heart of the universe is the Canadian John Leslie. (Note I
said philosopher, not theologian.) But Leslie has yet to write a
complete metaphysics such as Pirsig�s MOQ.
In Lila, Chapter 26, Pirsig says:
�A review of his book (ZAMM) in the Harvard Educational Review had
said that his idea of truth was the same as James. The London Times
said he was a follower of Aristotle. Psychology Today said he was a
follower of Hegel.� (Parens added).
I wonder, Struan, who you will nominate as Pirsig�s mentor. Can you
point to any philosopher of note who uses Pirsig�s beginning
assumption that �Quality is the primary empirical reality of the world.�
(Chap.5) �And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that
means morality is also the primary reality of the world.� (Chap.7)
Pope John and a few theologians may agree that reality is morality. But
fifty philosophers? Maybe before you unsubscribe permanently, Struan,
you�ll give us the name of just one or two who have written a complete
metaphysics with morality as its central premise. It would surely spark
a lively discussion on this site and be a fitting farewell gift of your
knowledge for the benefit of the group should you decide to leave.
Platt
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]
