Hi Simon, Jonathan, Roger, Marco and All:
SIMON:
A mind cannot know itself. Yet a mind cannot know anything apart from
itself. Inescapable contradiction?
Interesting question. One can say, “I know what I know” without
contradiction. The question then becomes, “Who is the I that knows
what I know?” And that question can go on infinitely.
Pushed to its limits, logic either ends up in inescapable contradiction
(paradox) or infinite regress, suggesting we possess and need to
further develop other forms of understanding, such as intuition and
aesthetic sensitivity. The latter is what I think Pirsig was driving at in
both ZMM and LILA. (Truth like paintings in a gallery, etc.)
PLATT: (previously)
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.
SIMON:
So I see an inescapable contradiction in your analysis. Thoughts and
beliefs are simultaneously subjective and objective, absolute and not
absolute.
Yes, in one sense the subject/object dichotomy IS simultaneous and
absolute, that is, two sides of the same coin. To quote William James:
“This paper and the seeing of it are two names for one indivisible fact.”
We divide experience (Quality) so we can continue experiencing.
Without dividing and making a distinction between me-in-here and you-
out-there, we wouldn’t last long. To live is to choose--friend or enemy?
So another paradox arises: To continue to exist in the undivided
present, the present must be divided. As Roger says, “But the static
mental shorthand (concepts) works marvelously . . . largely due to its
ability to identify and create simple yet meaningful patterns.” To which I
would add: The reason the patterns are meaningful is that without
them we’re dead.
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.
Yes, your “full circle” analogy captures the place we’ve arrived at.
Pursuing logic to its end we find ourselves going around in circles, just
as science in pursuing reductionism to its end has dropped into an
irrational, noncausal Wonderland where the only certainty is probability
or in Jonathan’s slightly different but similar perspective, "potentiality."
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?
As the Buddha said, “See for yourself.”
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?
Zen koans cannot be solved by thinking. That’s their point. And we
absolutely (-: agree that logic has it limits. But--and here’s my
point—this post is an exercise in logic from beginning to end,
representing our thoughts as best as we can express them and, IMHO,
certainly worthwhile. Don’t you agree?
Thanks for a great post, Simon. We’re beginning to push the limits of
metaphysics, exactly what Pirsig suggested that we do. If we keep
pushing hard enough, we may find ourselves writing poetry to convey a
deeper understanding that I feel we are on the brink of discovering, or
rather, have happen to us as we, as a group, keep pressing on the
gates. Marco’s coming posts on paradoxes and beauty are likely to
provide another surge forward.
Platt
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