Well now Rick,
RICK:
> Elephant,
> I thought I had written this so simply that even a slow child could
> understand the problem I was pointing out. Yet, somehow you still failed
> get the point. I'll do it one more time, and I'll take out as many of my
> little side points and comments as I can... I'll number the points... I'll
> section off the different points in the text..... all this so that we can be
> sure you don't get confused again.
>
> One more time, just for you Elephant....
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Pirsig clearly acknowledges a distinction between "gravitation" and "the
> law of gravitation". As evidenced by this sentence....
>
> PIRSIG: "For example, it seems completely natural to presume that
> gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Issac Newton."
>
> You tell me:
>
> ELEPHANT:
>> Word to the wise Rick: never underestimate the importance if this word
>> "seems" in a philosopher's mouth. Appearance and reality. If someone of
>> Pirsig's ilk goes so far as to state that it "seems" that such and such,
> you
>> can bet your bottom ECU that he's about to say that it *only* "seems" that
>> such and such, and that, on the contrary, *really* it is so and so.
>
> RICK:
> You're right about this rhetorical implication of "seems." But the "seems"
> is directed at the notion that BOTH GRAVITATION AND THE LAW OF GRAVITATION,
> existed before Issac Newton. It is NOT directed the notion that
> "gravitation" and "the law of gravitation" are separate things. Pirsig
> clearly accepts the distinction and that's all we'll need.
ELEPHANT:
No.
1. That Pirsig accepts that this distinction is real and attaches to
substance is the very opposite of "clear", indeed it goes against everything
he is saying about the reality of the Dynamic continuum.
2. If I use the words "gravity itself" then that is certainly not "all
we'll need" to show that I think there is this thing gravity itself that the
words refer to.
RICK:
> 2. Pirsig intends to refute the proposition that it is "nutty" to think
> that until the 17th century there was no GRAVITY. As evidenced by this
> sentence....
>
> PIRSIG: "It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century
> there was no GRAVITY." (emphasis added)
ELEPHANT:
No gainsaying that and I haven't. I have attempted to point out that the
reason Pirsig thinks this beleif is not nutty is that GRAVITY *is* this
force of gravity that Newton talks about, and that forces are
physio-mathematical concepts and thus entertained by intelligences, not
apples. See Dann's point.
RICK:
> 3. Pirsig instead argues that it is not nutty to think the "LAW of gravity"
> didn't exist before Newton, without mentioning the "GRAVITY" he claimed he
> would argue about even once. As evidenced in these quotes.....
>
> PIRSIG: "So when did this LAW start? Has it always existed?" (emphasis
> added)
ELEPHANT:
It strikes me that it's your adding emphasis left right and centre which is
stopping you from understanding. You INSIST on the distinction between LAW
and GRAVITY ITSELF, while all the time Pirsig's free toggling between the
two suggests that it's this very distinction he is doubting. There's a
difference between using your existing world-picture to codify an author's
statements in quantificational logic in the search for some syllogism, and
actually trying to understand what he is saying. We need your insistence on
logic - it's not an optional extra - but there is in this case questions for
you to answer about the interpretation of Pirsig that you are codifying. Is
this limited passage you refer to to be taken and evaluated as Pirsig's
complete argument in full for the asserted newness of Gravity? Or is it,
as I have suggested, rather building on points he has made elsewhere about
the indiscrete continuity (DQ) of perceptual experience?
RICK:
>>> PIRSIG:
>>> "What I'm driving at," I say, "is the notion that before the beginning
> of the
>>> earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal
> generation
>>> of anything, the LAW of gravity existed." (emphasis added)
>>>
>>> PIRSIG:
>>> Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in
>>> anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there
> was no
>>> space either, not anywhere-this LAW of gravity still existed?" (emphasis
> added)
>>
>>> PIRSIG:
>>> "If the law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don't know what a
> thing
>>> has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that LAW of gravity has
> passed
>>> every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single
> attribute
>>> of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't have. Or a single
> scientific
>>> attribute of existence it did have...." (emphasis added)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> 4. Pirsig concludes that he has shown that GRAVITY ITSELF didn't exist
> before Newton. As evidenced by this sentence.....
>>>>
>>> PIRSIG:
>>> "Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find
> yourself
>>> going round and round and round and round until you finally reach only
> one
>>> possible, rational intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and
> GRAVITY
>>> ITSELF did not exist before Issac Newton. No other conclusion makes
> sense."
>>> (emphasis added)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> All I intended to show was that Pirsig claims he'll prove A, proves B, and
> then claims he proved A. That's all.
ELEPHANT:
Indeed this is all you intended to show - but I don't think you have shown
it. Because you don't seem prepared to take these remarks about gravity in
their proper context. It's as if, after lopping off as many premises as
possible, you declared that Pirsig's argument is defective because it lacks
a crucial premise. Not particularly insightful - but amusing after a
fashion.
RICK:
> Some of us might recognize this as the sane trick spotted by Struan in
> Pirsig's letter to Bodvar (in which Pirsig claims he'll argue that
> Value=Reality, and then instead argues that "Value is real"). My argument
> had nothing to with the "truth" of the conclusion he reached--- It was only
> intended to show that his argument did not support that conclusion in anyway
> at all. I believe the above simplification (with the numbers so you can
> follow real easy) proves this point far beyond any reasonable doubt.
ELEPHANT:
Well, my argument has everything to do with the truth of the conclusiion he
reached, and also very much with the truth about how he actually reached it
- I have tried to raise points about DQ but without success. Simple I may
be, but uninterested in the truth I am not.
RICK:
> [elephant...]
> however, failed to see what my argument was directed at and instead went off
> on some tirade about proving that Pirsig's conclusion is true--- something
> that was TOTALLY BESIDES THE POINT!!!! A true conclusion at the end of a
> flawed argument does not fix the argument. The (argumentative) ends do not
> justify the (argumentative) means. It's supposed to be the other way
> around.
ELEPHANT:
Indeed it is. In this case *my* argumentitive end is to understand and
discuss what Pirsig is really saying - and not to rule out of consideration
at the very start all points that might lead us to see what Pirsig's
substantive point might be. To make this clear, another analogy.
Suppose I argue:
Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore
Socrates is mortal
- this, with some quibbles, is an argument that is relevant and conclusive,
and has just the premises it needs to do the job. Now Suppose someone
decides that the first line "Socrates is a man" is part of some other
argument entirely, and not to be included in this dedicated logical analysis
of the argument:
All men are mortal
Therefore
Socrates is mortal
- they might then say that, formally, this argument is invalid. To true.
But only because the all mightly analysts have decided to lop off the
crucial premise of their own accord. It strikes me that this is exactly
what you are doing, Rick, in decontextualising this passage about gravity.
If we bear in mind what Pirsisg elsewhere says about subjects and objects
being a second cut after the static/dynamic split (this after all is his
main thesis), it will be transparent that the object "gravity itself" is
only something that exists in terms of our intellectual static patterns (ie
Newtonian "force" or the Relativistic "wanderings" Dann speaks of): this is
what justifies the speaking of the law and of the itself as it they were
interchangeable: they are.
RICK:
> Additionally, I made no comments about my personal view on the matter...
> despite your repeated and ridiculous claims that I did (ex. "His famous law
> "force=mass*acceleration" is not the empirical discovery that Glenn and Rick
> apparently take it to be.")--- where did I say this??? Can you point to a
> quote please????
ELEPHANT:
Well, you must take it to be an empirical discovery if you maintain that
there is this Gravity Itself distinct from the law of gravity. And since
maintaining this distinction is the main element of your criticism of
Pirsig, it is fair to infer that this is in fact your view. If it is not,
then I naturally withdraw my comments. I expect you, in return, to
withdraw you criticism of Pirsig. Because if you don't beleive in the
fundamental tenet about the existence of this "gravity itself" that all your
comments against Pirsig are based on, then your contribution thus far is
mere luftgebaude.
RICK:
> ---- Perhaps you would realize that rays of enlightenment (or whatever) do
> NOT flow from your keyboard, if you actually argued with what I said instead
> of making up stuff, claiming that it's a belief I hold and then arguing with
> that. Maybe a better handle for you would be "Strawman" instead of
> "Elephant". Just a thought.
>
> I tire of this...
> rick
> PS
> As for the "clocks"--- You completely missed the point there as well (big
> surprise). My point was not just that your analogy was drawn to an
> illogical conclusion.... the point was that it was a drawn to an illogical
> conclusion that had NOTHING TO DO WITH GLENN'S CONCLUSION. I substituted a
> correction so that your analogy would correctly mirror Glenn's argument, but
> you completely neglected it and went off on your own thing.
> I can't argue with people who can't find the point.... Keep practicing.
ELEPHANT:
Indeed.
Your novice,
Elephant
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 - 16:01:09 BST