This has nothing to do with Pirsig, which means that I will be extraordinarily brief.
I wanted to point out that Bo kinda' charged me with being a reductive idealist and DMB charged me with being reductive physicalist. First, I think this funny. Second, I still can't figure out what this has to do with Pirsig. Naturally we would all like Pirsig to be the perfect philosopher, whatever that means for each of us, but I thought I had pretty well bracketed my own desires in my explication of the passage. I very well stipulated what I thought Rick's question meant (Rick even pretty much agreed on my interpretation of the question) and I still think what I said bears out the implications of the passage given the question. I'm waiting for someone to give an alternate close reading. Still the funniest part of all this? Reading past all the bs and vocable differences, I still see DMB and me agreeing on how best to read Pirsig. Our main differences are on how Pirsig reads himself (e.g., DMB and I probably differ in degree as to how literally Pirsig takes his own analogy) and how effective Pirsig's choice of words are (DMB takes him as being straightforward, I take him as being ambiguous). But as far as our own philosophies are concerned, I think DMB and are in large agreement, just not in how we say it. That's, at least, what has become apparent to me. Matt MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
