[MD] Humanism

[118]

Hi dmb,


> dmb says:
> Did I ever tell you about the time I went to Liverpool and delivered a
> paper called "Fun With Blasphemy"? Pirsig seemed to like it quite a bit.
> It's still up on Ant's website, if you're interested. And yea, I kinda am a
> disciple, although one that thinks blasphemy is fun.
>
>>

>
>> [Mark]
> Yes, I have read your essay.  I thought it was quite good.  I realize that
> you understand what Pirsig is saying as it has developed since Lila.  It is
> possible that the quotes you use mean something different to me.  I am no
> expert on Lila since I have not had the additional conversation that
> imparted meaning to you.  I have many of my own interpretations of the
> paragraphs in ZMM.  As such, I need a little more explanation from the
> modern version of interpretation.  The use of rhetoric relates to common
> understanding of subject.  Often words are used to provide additional
> understanding beyond what the words actually say.
>
> There was a long time between ZMM and Lila.  During that time the concept
> of Quality did not stand still.  I had numerous discussions with others and
> it was discussed in philosophy classes.  Perhaps I bring a more historical
> approach which does not coincide necessarily with what is presented in Lila.
>  The concept had already grown before Lila, and cannot be suddenly changed
> because of a single book on the subject.  This is not to say that a
> metaphysics had been built during that time, it was more of a shared
> awareness in everyday life.  The whole notion of strict levels was foreign
> to my understanding.  I hope you appreciate my difficulty.
>
> The case in point, was the quote you provided by Pirsig.  I think the
> questions I provided were appropriate for discussion, such as the notion of
> participating in the creation.  To further examine such theories requires an
> explanation of the personal interpretation.  Perhaps this is self evident to
> you, but not to me.  If we always resort to the explanation that it cannot
> be explained, then the metaphysics falls short, in my opinion.  If we have a
> strict interpretation of Quality it also has difficulties.  This is where
> fuzzy analogies come in.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/md/archives.html
>
>