Elephant,
ALL MEN ARE MORTAL,
SOCRATES IS MORTAL,
Therefore: ALL MEN ARE SOCRATES. (Steve Martin)
ELEPHANT:
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:
If one uses the words "gravity itself" then that is certainly not "all we'll
need" to show that one believes there is this thing "gravity" that the words
refer to. Your point is correct, in that respect. But it's a strawman,
again. MY point was that if one uses the terms "law of gravitation" and
"gravitation" side by side in the same sentence (as Pirsig did in the above
quote) then that's highly indicative of the fact that he thinks of "law of
gravitation" and "gravitation" as two different things. If he was trying to
imply that they were the same why use both terms, side by side, in the same
sentence? It would be like an 'adult's only club' putting up a sign that
says"Kids and Children are prohibited." Unless the two terms had different
meanings, why bother with both? This problem is further highlighted by the
suspicious absence of "gravity itself" throughout the rest of the argument,
up until the conclusion where it mysteriously shows up again. And if he
wanted to say that the two terms had the same referent, then why not be more
explicit about it? If he means what you say, then he has stumbled onto the
most confusing and indirect way to say it. He's either a bad logician or a
sloppy writer... take your pick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
RICK:
> > 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.
.....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:
First off... You accuse me of omitting things. However, you will note that
I included the entire "gravity" argument omitting nothing but John's
responses to Pirsig's statements and questions. As for what Pirsig says
elsewhere, your putting the cart before the horse my friend. The arguments
are supposed to support the theory, not vice versa. If one must understand
all of Pirsig's other theory's before they can understand the Gravity
argument, than what value does the argument have??? It can't possibly help
support the theory if the theory is necessary to support the argument. This
is begging the question and circular logic and about a hundred other
fallacies. Are you, by the above, conceding that the argument can't stand
on it's own???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
>
> 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:
Boy, you just don't get that showing that Pirsig's argument fails is not the
same thing as trying to prove it's conclusion is false, or that some other
conclusion is true. My opinion is totally besides the point (I may even
agree with Pirsig's conclusion), the point is that he doesn't prove it in
that argument, which you seem to have conceded. But I have to hand it to
you, that's quite a static filter you got going there. You have read so
much into Pirsig's argument that isn't there at all. It seems to me that
you are willing to bend the text and read in all sorts of your own ideas in
order to save yourself the hardship of admitting that Pirsig's argument
simply doesn't work. Whether his conclusion is correct is a discussion for
another time.
rick
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