[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:

> Err no Platt, nice try ...
> 
> That is not what Pirsig is on about here.
> The first division he is talking about here is whether to go for DQ /
> SQ of the MoQ or for the traditional S/O choice. This division
> dominates, not every little (seemingly) binary choice in the SOMist
> world.
> 
> Duck / Not-Duck is not part of his metaphysical classification, but
> part of a SOMist ontolgy.

Lest we forget, Pirsig never banishes the SO division from intellect.


> On 1/19/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Platt,
> > >
> > > Saying "duck" is shorthand for "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" is
> fine.
> > > Saying, "and that's all there is to it", is a highly "anti-intellectual"
> stance.
> >
> > True, but it's a start. Intellect, like everything else, has to begin
> somewhere.
> > Like Pirsig said, "In any hierarchy of metaphysical classification the most
> > important division is the first one, for this division dominates everything
> > beneath it." (Lila, 9) In this case, duck or not duck, design or not design.
> Then
> > you set about showing why your beginning division is likely true or not.



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/