ELEPHANT TO STRUAN:
You were cut off in mid sentence, I believe, by some technical hitch? You
were going to tell us what you thought a "metaphysics" is, given that you're
so sure SOM isn't one.
SCARECROW TO DOROTHY:
That's just it, I can't make up my mind. I haven't got a brain, it's only
made of straw.
WHEN YOU WISH... (etc)
(THERE'S MORE......)
STRUAN WROTE:
> I enjoyed 3WD's nose tweaking greatly. His 'critique' penetrated this 'thick
> . . . uncomprehending skull' with remarkable ease, and, due to its density;
> it will be fun to dispose of:
>
3WD WROTE:
> "C-1-"The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism.
> It claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or
> by thinking about what the senses provide." Lila- pg. 113
>
> Since this is almost a word for word definition of empiricism that most
> sources trace through the British empirical movement to Francis Bacon it
> would be difficult to see how a definition created and refined before
> Pirsig was born could be contingent on a "strawman" he created after
> their deaths. Unless of course "SOM" was and integral part of
> empiricism, which no card carrying "academic" empiricist would admit to,
> in as much as this might lend support to Pirig's "SOM" claim. No
> difference here."
STRUAN WROTE:
> There is a difference between the 'claim' that empiricism is followed by the
> moq and the 'actuality' that it isn't. The DEFINITION of empiricism is not
> contingent upon a strawman while the moq is. Even if I am wrong and the moq
> is empirical, this argument fails because the conclusion that a definition
> of empiricism cannot be contingent upon a strawman is not supported by (or
> even related to) the reason given, namely, that the definition of empiricism
> precedes the exposition of som.
ELEPHANT:
Really Struan, this is worthy of the Wicked Witch of the West (or her
sister, which ever one is alive after Dorothy drops in). 3WD is on to
something and trying to get there, but at every turn of the yellow brick
road, there you are in a puff of evil unsmoke, bewitching us all with your
determined obfuscations, cackling with glee.
(I just know you'll take this as a compliment).
MOQ is empiricism, but it's empiricism of a very particular kind: 'radical
empricism'. Bacon has got about as much to do with radical empirism as he
has to do with Heraclitus: not much. The 'empiricism' part in 'radical
empiricism' is there to assure us, correctly, that we are still paying
attention to experience. But then, what else is there to attend to? The
whole conflict in philosophy is between different characterisations of
experience. If attending to experience makes you an empiricist (as James,
with a forgivable and politic selective attention would have us beleive),
then Plato is an empiricist, Sartre is an empiricist, Hegel is an
empiricist. What makes you an empiricist is not attention to experience but
a certain specific characterisation of that experience, viz as containing
"sensory impressions" or data, or some such distinct packets of information.
Empiricism, therefore, is an ontology: it is an account of what there is in
the world, and it is that account according to which immediate experience
can be of data. This contrasts with the ontology of the mystics, for whom
immediate experience is not of discreet packets of data, but of the
aesthetic continuum. Radical empirism, here, sides with the mystics. So,
what we call 'radical empiricism', is, from the point of veiw of ontology,
so radical as not to be a variety of empiricism at all.
Hence the hiatus, the momentary halt upon the yellow brick road, at which
point you pounce on our three dear freinds, understanding nothing, and
cackling at everything.
STRUAN WROTE:
> I am pretty sure that Strawson did not have James in mind when he called the
> moq 'rigorously unoriginal' and I have yet to meet anyone who denies, "the
> common sense notion of subjects and objects as . . . the "natural
> mother-tongue of thought"". But, most importantly, you simply cannot
> conclude that one philosopher (James) not concluding what Pirsig concludes
> is conclusive evidence that no other philosopher does.
ELEPHANT:
I think you're not quite there on what it was that James did not conclude,
but re not basing an evaluation of Prisig on a comparison with just one
philosopher: quite. That's why it would be a good idea if you, Struan
Hellier, gave us your examples of Philosophers who do not hold SOM, so that
we can honestly evaluate your claims. At present you present no target for
us to aim at, but hide in a dark corner somewhere, sniping from the
sidelines. Granted, if we are to show that Prisig deserves greater respect
we have to discuss the current philosophical scene carefully, taking
philosophers one by one, to determine whether they are or are not any kind
of SOMist. This is something I have been inviting you to help us with for
some time now. Continued refusal indicates cowardice or triviality or both.
STRUAN WROTE:
> It goes
> without saying that harmony is a valuable quality to which any theory should
> aspire. Even if I am doubly wrong the quotation only serves to show the
> pragmatist's belief in the subjectivity of truth:
>
> "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and
> verify. False ideas are those we can not."
>
> Well I can't 'assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify' the moq.
> Therefore, by James' criteria of truth, the moq is false, for me.
ELEPHANT:
If we could be convinced that you had ever tried, that statement might be
taken more seriously. Also, I would be more convinced of your appreciation
of James' Pragmatism if you had not called the test of truth 'subjective'.
This indicates a failure to understand that truth is a variety of the good,
and that the good is neither a subject nor an object. Therein lies the
kernel of MOQ. Truth, as a variety of the good, precedes subjects. It
cannot, therefore, be "subjective". As this is also Plato's position in my
veiw, and central to his rejection of Protagoras in the Theaetetus, I
suggest you reconsider your hasty rejection of 20th cent. american
philosophy, and do some proper reading. It might help if you got off the
broomstick too.
STRUAN CONFESSES:
> Yes, I am just having fun (nose tweaking as you might say) - but you make it
> so easy, Dave. Once again, when some pillock thinks he can take the piss
> without putting one intelligent observation down, I only give back as good
> as I get. Sorry if that causes offence, but this is a forum devoted to
> rhetoric rather than a search for truth, is it not??
ELEPHANT:
Struan, this forum has the capacity to develop in whatever direction you
choose it to. Would you like to search for truth? You can still insult
people as well if you like (if you think this is an area where you will
excel), so long as you also try to answer questions. Would you like to try
to answer a question?
Struan,
What is 'Metaphysics'?
Pzeph
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 - 16:00:55 BST