[MD] John Carl: Ignoramous or fraud?

[John Carl]

Adrie and Dan,

To tie off the end of this thread, I challenged Auxier on why agreement
with Whitehead, was reason to disparage Pirsig?  Surely he didn't think
Pirsig was a fraud?  His response and my answer are the end of our
conversation.  If he ever answers me back, I'll post it.


On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Randall Auxier <personalist61 at gmail.com>
 wrote:

> Who is disparaging anyone?
>


Jc:

 When you said "Perhaps now you are beginning to understand why I am not so
interested in Pirsig. I work on the real thing."  I felt  that was
disparaging Pirsig.   And as our conversation developed, I wondered how you
couldn't be interested in a recapitulation of Whitehead, especially such a
popular one.

RA:



> Making an observation. I said I don't6 get anything from Pirsig that I
> didn't already get from Whitehead. Still never finished Lila, but read
> enough to see the idea. I know all this already. Didn't need to read it, so
> it seemed to me.
>
> RA
>


Well... I think you ought to reconsider.  At least read Sneddon's thesis -
its a good synopsis of Pirsig's view, by a professional;  and I think the
comparison of the two is very fruitful.  If, as you point out, Pirig
absorbed Whitehead's process philosophy at Chicago, well, he (Pirsig)
certainly made a very entertaining and accessible approach to it.

jc

----------------

It's interesting that a Whitehead scholar rejects Pirsig as interesting
because he doesn't add anything to Whitehead, but Pirsig scholars claim
there's no real commonality between the two because Whitehead is just a
dumb old theist.    I have to laugh, just like I have to laugh at the sad
look on the faces of all the intellectual-know-it-alls who can't believe
our next president.

TRUMP!  FINALLY THE PRESIDENT THAT AMERICA DESERVES