Dear Discoverylover, Sara and all.<br><br>Disco.
wrote in a previous message):<br>&gt; Hello, I’m here
too. In the last three days I read some
consequent<br>&gt; parts of Lila. I found some similar points with
phenomenology.<br>&gt; Phenomenology is a reaction against the natural
scientific way of<br>&gt; explaining the reality. As Pirsig
says, “Should reality be something<br>&gt; that only a
handful of the world’s most advanced physicists<br>&gt;
understand?”<br><br>Agreement about the last line. Over at the Pirsig/MoQ
discuss/focus forums there are so many who want to demonstrate
how complex (their understanding of) Pirsig's system
is and of philosophy in general is (maybe I have
sinned too:) but I have often referred to the said
passage about small children. The MoQ is <br>the simplest
possible view of reality. About phenomenology I am a bit
rusty at the moment, is that Husserl or Heidegger or
..? <br> <br>&gt; An implication of the above problem
comes to mind. It seems that<br>&gt; people, who
believe in the might of science, become less certain
in<br>&gt; their own ability to understand reality. That is,
if only a handful of<br>&gt; experts can know the
reality, then the ordinary people would have to<br>&gt;
rely on those experts’ knowledge. <br><br>I was once
an avid reader of science magazines (still subscribe
to Scientific American) but I have stopped believing
that they speak about any ultimate truth. There is
however a great respect for titles and positions;
Doctorates, professors, "chairs" at this or that University,
bah!. The most rigid minds are the university
"philosophologists". They don't recognize an idea unless it's at least
<br>two hundred years old, but as Pirsig has
demonstrated; Social value play a <br>major role, so its part
of the game. <br>Thanks from the eternal amateur
...whatever.<br>Bo<br><br>PS for Sara.<br>To do your input justice I must
return to it in a separate post.