PLATT:
This is in response to your post of Feb. 8. Sorry for the delay. I've gotten
behind by trying to engage in three conversations at once.
SIMON:
Say nothing of it, I have never been known for my prompt responses.
"A thousand flatterers sit within thy crown,
Whose compass is no bigger than thy head;" - Gaunt in Richard II
What greater self-flattery than to think that we can understand the world?
When all it is is just an interpretation of reality. The universe whose
compass is no bigger than thy head old man. And that about sums up my
position.
PLATT:
An eye cannot see itself.
SIMON:
A mind cannot know itself. Yet a mind cannot know anything apart from
itself. Inescapable contradiction?
SIMON(previously):
Subjective absolutes can be absolute. Absolute faith, absolute trust,
absolute belief. Objective absolutes can't. Absolute truth, and so on. But
then again, that's just my absolute belief. Given that statements are
statements of my belief, they may be absolute. I make a statement that
appears absolute, it can only be absolute according to me. That's not
to say that my belief isn't the absolute truth, but I can never be
absolutely sure about it.
PLATT:
If I understand you correctly, it is your belief that absolutes exist only
subjectively as personal beliefs, never objectively.
SIMON:
Yes, that's my belief.
PLATT:
But here's the thing. A statement of your personal beliefs is an object to
me and others. Like
other objects, I see or hear your statement and interpret it. It's put 'out
there' for me to consider and thus objective to me. In fact, your own
thoughts and beliefs are objects to you, existing as identifiable entities
against a background of your inner, mental space/time.
So I see an inescapable contradiction in your analysis. Thoughts and
beliefs are simultaneously subjective and objective, absolute and not
absolute.
SIMON:
Are they objects to me? I interpret them, so I guess that they must be. Yet
I am my thoughts, hence my thoughts are the subjective 'me' that interprets
the data. Without interpretative thoughts, there is no subject interpreting.
My thoughts are simultaeously subjects and objects by your logic.
Inescabable contradiction? Not really, as however much I interpret my
thoughts they are still only subjects. Subjects interpreting subjects. I put
out my subjective self, my thoughts, for examination - to you I am an
object, but as soon as you start to interpret my thoughts and beliefs then
they become part of your subject. Have I just denied the existence of
objects? Ummmm... yes, I think I have. But since neither subjects nor
objects are real, it doesn't make much difference. I've not read Ant
McWatt's paper, but having read the introduction that Rog posted, I agree
with what's written, especially:
"Therefore, for Pirsig, immediate experience (or Quality) is experience
where
there is no distinction between what is experienced and the act of
experiencing itself. Quality is the changing flux of reality that logically
comes before any conceptual distinctions such as subjects and objects are
made. The concepts of subject and object are commonly confused with the
essence of reality because they have become such a common apparatus for
describing, understanding and analysing that reality "
Quality interpreting quality. But you accept this.
PLATT:
Pirsig solves such subject/object conundrums by saying that objects,
both mental and material, intangible and tangible, are patterns of
values. In doing this, he co-joins the mental and the physical, mind and
matter, subject and object, just as many quantum scientists have. Both
he and they have concluded that it's all basically the same stuff albeit
in different forms.
SIMON:
Has this post travelled a full circle? Maybe, but I think our difference
lies in your phrase "different forms". Do my thoughts and beliefs suddenly
change form when I express them? If they don't change form, then they remain
subjects, and hence can be absolute. If they do change form and become
objects, then why must their absoluteness remain also? Thoughts and beliefs
are absolute in what they are, but not in what they express. But then,
thoughts and beliefs are subjects, and subjects may be absolute.
SIMON(previously):
Consider the
following sentence: "It is an absolute certainty that the sun will rise
tomorrow." - attempt at objective absolute truth - justify this certainty, I
challenge you.
SIMON:
Will you accept my challenge and justify this certainty?
PLATT:
Perhaps the key to this whole question of absolutes is "intelligibility."
To think rationally and thus to survive, it's necessary for absolutes to
exist. Or, to put it in Pirsigian terms, if it's worth thinking about, it's
worth thinking about logically.
SIMON:
Is it? Zen koans are full of inescapable logical contradictions. Are they
not worth thinking about? Logic itself is self-destructing without the a
priori concepts, yet logic cannot explain them.
"The mind all logic is like a knife all blade, it cuts the hand that wields
it."
Let go of logic and experience the world first hand. Can you find any
absolutes that don't stem from inference, from inside?
Simon
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 - 16:01:06 BST