Re: MD Dewey/James

[RISKYBIZ9]

ROG TO ELEPHANT ELEPHANT: Interesting - I seem to remember Prisig does mention James - can anybody out there confirm this? ROG: Extensively. Especially in Ch 29.  After reading James, all the stranger threads of the MOQ connected into a much more understandable metaphysics. I think that the MOQ is a direct extension of William James thoughts. ELEPHANT: � But actually the Jamesian approach doesn't seem ammenable to any "metaphysics of quality", whereas, to my mind, Dewey's does.� James is all for doing without philosophy and going back to what we do, so it seems that he wouldn't take kindly to any metaphysics here - he wouldn't want to make quality into a fundamental reality, he'd reject fundamental realities (am I right?). ROG: We might want 3WD to jump in on this (another Dave).  He is studying James. I will say that James didn't like arguing over things that weren't relevant or that would not make a difference "at definite instants of our life".   However, since Pirsig considers "direct everyday experience" (end of ch 29) to be a metaphor for DQ, I think he meets this test. Direct experience is the most common terminology Pirsig uses to help us relate to DQ. James certainly wasn't into sweeping absolutes. I never read any Dewey or Wittgenstein. Rog "It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence." W.J.