Hi Platt,
GLENN:
Well this bit about my "belief that Pirsig hates science" seems to keep
hitting a nerve with you, Platt, and I believe it's a nerve in your brain!
PLATT:
Are you saying you don’t believe Pirsig hates science? If my memory is
correct, we had an exchange not long ago on that very issue. Wasn’t
your position that Pirsig hated science because he blamed science for
SOM and our cultural decline? Is “hate” too strong?
All I'm doing in my quote above is tweaking you. But since you admit that
memories are stored in the brain, I guess beliefs like "I think Pirsig
hates science" also reside in the brain, even though you intimated that
they weren't when you said science hasn't found them there.
I don't know if "hate" is too strong, because I don't know him well enough.
But I know "hate" doesn't fully describe the complexity of his attitudes
about science. If you had to describe *your* attitudes about science,
would you find similarities with his? What about differences?
PLATT:
If I interpret Pirsig correctly, he says you feel the pain (or smell a skunk)
and unconsciously determine it’s low quality a split second before you
can consciously conceptualize and express what’s happening.
Unconscious perception has been shown to have a firm empirical
base, as I discovered in reading papers on the subject on the Web.
I suppose yours is the interpretation Pirsig wants, considering that he
says anyone can verify the hot stove for themself if they care to (meaning
you don't need premonitions). But then I have 3 complaints. The first is
that pain is a physical sensation, not what I would call a genuine
psychical DQ experience. It seems firmly rooted in the biological level.
In fact you could even argue that psychic feelings like awe are biological.
If there is a difference between biology and DQ, it's very easy to confuse
the two. If the two are entangled, it's difficult to separate pain (the
biological component) from the low-quality of pain (the DQ component). In
any event science will probably show, if it hasn't already, that the
cutting edge of pain is the action of neurons and nervous tissue, in which
case you'll have to fall back on my interpretation of the hot stove to put
DQ in it's proper place.
Second, the observation that pain precedes oaths is certainly true in this
case but it's not always true that value precedes rationality. Sometimes
you actually have to think things through before you appreciate the value
(or lack of it) in something.
Third, this is simply not a more fabulous explanation of experience. The
conventional explanations of sitting on a hot stove are at least as good.
DQ does not resolve the deep mystery of subjective experience, it just
moves it to a new address.
GLENN (previously):
Finally, there's this business about DQ creating substance during quality
experiences. There's no empirical evidence for this, and it contradicts science
because a rock that you create and which you claim to be several minutes old
can be carbon-dated and shown to be several million years old. Also, this idea
of humans creating substances like rocks on-the-fly contradicts another part of
MOQ, which states that the inorganic level evolved and pre-dated humans. In
this case either evolution is wrong or the creative power of DQ is not true.
You didn't respond to this. When I brought this up in a post last July in a
rebuttal to Pirsig's resolution of the mind-matter problem, I recall you
saying Roger had an answer for this, but you couldn't remember it. Roger
didn't respond then but perhaps he didn't read our thread. Would he care
to now?
PLATT:
Boy, you got me on this one. “Humans creating substances?” I’m sorry
but I have no recollection of such a discussion and if I claimed that the
MOQ asserts that humans create substances and that rocks are
several minutes old, well, I must have had one to many. Please quote
from Pirsig the relevant passage(s) that concern you.
Like I said, the original discussion wasn't about rocks, it was about the
mind/matter problem. I just used rocks as an example of a substance created
by a dynamic quality experience (saying 'humans creating substances' is
just sloppiness on my part, because this makes it sound like people are
alchemists, but this isn't what Pirsig is saying, of course). Presumably
the creation only occurs with rocks not formerly created and not staticly
latched.
>From your MD post dated 28 July, 2000:
PIRSIG:
So what the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that all schools
are right on the mind-matter question. Mind is contained in static
inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual
patterns. Both mind and matter are completely separate
evolutionary levels of static patterns of value, as such are capable
of each containing the other without contradiction.”
GLENN:
If it’s not still contradictory it’s weird. A timeline of evolution is
clearly described in by MOQ, where inorganic matter comes first
and minds come later. Saying matter is contained in static
intellectual patterns is saying brand new matter is being created
by the mind on the fly. Is this matter different from the matter that
evolved before mind did?
PH:
Your critique was raised by Maggie and answered by Roger last
year. Unfortunately, while I remember the date, I can’t recall the
answer. Perhaps someone will jump in and enlighten both of us.
I think it may have something to do with Pirsig’s contention that the
reason there’s a mind-matter problem is because the biological
and social levels get left out. In any case, you raise a good point
that deserves a better answer than I’m able to provide.
End of MD post dated 28 July, 2000
And from your MD post dated 10 Sept, 2000
GLENN:
The biggest difference I have with MOQ is I'm not ready to accept
DQ as an undefined "something" that creates everything.
HAMISH
Well, in that last sentence, you'll find many a MOQer in agreement
with you.
PLATT:
Here’s at least one MOQer who buys the assumption that DQ
creates everything. Without that basic building block, the whole
structure of the MOQ collapses.
End of MD post dated 10 Sept, 2000
Pirsig says it best in ZMM.
PIRSIG: (ZMM ch. 29 p. 374 25th Ann.)
"Man is the measure of all things." Yes, that is what he is saying about
Quality. Man is not the *source* of all things, as the subjective idealists
would say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective
idealists and materialists would say. The Quality which creates the world
emerges as a *relationship* between man and his experience. He is a
*participant* in the creation of all things. [emphasis his]
I could not find quotes like this in Lila, despite thinking there were.
Even though all the ingredients for it are there in MOQ, and folks here
have talked about it plenty, I'm wondering now if MOQ truly specifies this.
If it doesn't, my biggest complaint with the MOQ would vanish (leaving only
about 50 minor ones :)).
I love 'ya, Bob P. Happy Valentine's Day. You to, Platt.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 - 16:01:05 BST