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 <personalis...@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 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