Matt: Insofar as we understand by "philosophology" "doing intellectual history," I have trouble understanding what you mean. If we don't take Pirsig's term to mean that, an alternative you'll have to supply, then I probably have serious misgivings surrounding such a use (most of which are outlined in my Forum paper "Philosophologology").
[x] I understand it as a study of the process of philosophy and a study of the process of knowledge, Peirce asserted That we gain knowledge by doing and that knowledge is not an absolute thing to build apon rather an evolving Process to edit as the understanding improves. We are not outside what we observe but a part of what we observe I think this is what Pirsig was saying About anthropology and philosophy we are not outside looking in, we are part of what is being observed where participation Is key to understanding. Pirsig and Peirce saw that The edifice of science tends to lean in the direction of knowledge as a collection of observed "facts" or "truths" to be built apon taken as absolute by later generations. Thanks Matt, I need to re-read your Philosophologology paper To comment any further for fear I'l get the shit Knocked out of me with my own words! Thanks agin -x From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig, James and Peirce x, You said: I used the term "theory of meaning" to come close to what I think Peirce was getting at like "philosophology" I guess Matt: Insofar as we understand by "philosophology" "doing intellectual history," I have trouble understanding what you mean. If we don't take Pirsig's term to mean that, an alternative you'll have to supply, then I probably have serious misgivings surrounding such a use (most of which are outlined in my Forum paper "Philosophologology"). And, insofar as Peirce was an original pragmatist, I'm sure there are many similarities to be gleaned from their respective views of science and such. Given that James didn't write a whole lot about science, Peirce and Pirsig probably do look superficially more similar. Deeper than that is an open question I'm not sure I'd even want to take a stab at. I don't talk a lot about Peirce because I don't know a lot about him. Rorty's not high on him, having studied him a lot way, way back, but he was probably over harsh when he said of Peirce, during his Presidential Address to the American Philosophical Association in '79, that his contribution to pragmatism was to merely have given it a name. I doubt Rorty entirely meant it (he probably couldn't stand to pass up on a joke like that in front of such an audience), but more mainstream pragmatists, especially Peircians like Susan Haack, have never really forgiven him. Matt _________________________________________________________________ With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few simple tips. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTi ps.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
