[MD] Pirsig, James and Peirce

[Ron Kulp]

 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: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:33 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
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/