> >
> Peter, I think we actually agree of everything:
>
).yes, i think so; thank goodness we're not heavily into Linguistic
Analysis! However, just a couple of teensy points, below:
>
> I think that after some careful rewording we can also agree also on the
> following issues,
> Yes but . . . we resolve the contradictions by limiting each truth to a
> particular context. Sometimes these contexts can be highly inventive
> (M'lord, when I admitted to the officer that I was driving at 185 mph,
> what I really meant was . . . .)
> Arbitrarily invoking contexts is easy, subjective and lazy - we do it
> all the time though.
>
>
> > But resolving the
> > apparent paradox generally requires some sort of paradigm shift, and
> it has
> > always been my impression that that is what Pirsig was writing about.
> This is hard and rare. It may still involve the emergence of contexts to
> bracket former truths, but now they are non-arbitrary, and reflect a
> deeper truth.
>
I've a feeling that the evolution of increasing orders of complexity of
those conceptual contexts is exactly what I mean by "paradigm shift"; and
yes, i would certainly aree that they are non-arbitrary.
> .
>
> > Lastly, the mysticism thing:
>
> I had written:
> "We *know* what quality is, so it isn't mystical."
>
> PETER says
> > perhaps I'm using a slightly different idea of
> > mysticism; I merely think of it as referring to the 'unknowable' in
> the
> > sense of indefinable. for this, only the edges need to be "hidden".
> This
> > definition applies to more entities that we 'know' than we generally
> > realise. Perhaps I'm wrong here, in which case I need another word for
> that
> > concept. Suggestions, anyone?
>
> We need to differentiate between the unknown and the unknowable.
> Mysticism underpins everything with the unknowable. Rational philosophy
> (as we know it) assumes that the unknown may be explored and uncovered
> ad infinitum, even if it remains a bottomless pit.
>
Ah! this is the crux of it: the rational way behaves as though everything IS
potentially knowable (i.e. explicable), whilst the mystical way insists the
opposite. But there is simply no way to prove either standpoint (not yet, at
least!). Both assertions are completely based on faith; in this sense, I
would say that one is as 'mystical' as the other! - They ARE unknowable by
me, at least. that is not to automatically assert that they are
*intrinsically* unknowable - I've no way to rationally make such an
assertion!
Now, is the requirement that the definition of mystical should include some
*intrinsic* element of 'ultimate unknowability', universally agreed upon, in
which ase I'll go and find another word, or is there some room for doubt?
> So Peter, are we going to agree to agree or to agree to disagree?
>
generally, i think we're in broad agreement, which is all anyone can ask.
however, the reason that I press the mystical / rational dualism is that I
actually wish to explore the idea that the apparent dualism is a chimera,
requiring of a sort of paradigm shift whereby the science/art divide, for
example might become irrelevant, or at least only mildly interesting.
I've a feeling that so-called rational thinking relies a great deal on leaps
of faith and intuitive grasping of that which is 'unknowable' (to the
individual); I've also a feeling that mysticism is not actually as illogical
(or: above logic) as many would have it; there's a sort of 'X-Files'
accompaniment to the mystic world which does the core assertions no favours,
an excuse for sloppy thinking, and so on.
And there's room for both perspectives for thinking about this. The
rational, 'scientific' approach can be terrific for clearing away the crap,
whilst the mysticism-inspired approach may sometimes facilitate the mental
grasping of things which simply should not be possible, logically.
Thinking about it, I've a feeling that the 'agree / disagree' choice is
unnecessary; perhaps a better analogy might be a sort of table-tennis match,
with the ball going back and forth. There might be apparent competition, but
there is actually a great deal of mutual agreement on the nature of the
basic context..?
cheers,
ppl
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:47 BST