Hi Platt,
you quoted Pirsig:
>
> "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience
> and economy of explanation." (Does anyone disagree with the need for
> adhering to logic and the correspondence theory of truth in our
> discussions?)
>
Two things on this - the first is that, as long as 'economy of explanation'
stands as a proxy for all aesthetic judgements then I don't see anything
wrong with Pirsig's tests; the second is that the correspondence theory of
truth, although IMO essential, is not the *only* proper criterion of truth.
If we make that the exclusive theory then we run the risk of importing
scientism, which it seems to me was one of the main things Pirsig was trying
to get away from in Zen.
Also, in your post in the Emotions thread, you write:
>>>Another way to think about the levels is to use place academic
disciplines at the appropriate levels. For example:
Inorganic: astronomy, physics, cosmology, chemistry, geophysics, etc.
Biological: biology, biochemistry, horticulture, paleontology, forestry,
etc.
Social: anthropology, history, geography, psychology, literature, etc.
Intellect: math, logic, philosophy, metaphysics, scientific method, etc.
Arts: painting, sculpture, music, architecture, design, etc.
As for emotions, I'll stick with Pirsig's view that they are biological
level
phenomena....
I'm unclear on what this achieves - you seem to be describing the variety of
faculties on a university campus. Is there a hierarchy involved? And, if so,
on what is it ultimately based? This is the same point that I was trying to
make to Bo - if, as I have argued elsewhere (and is being argued with
greater frequency elsewhere at the moment, eg Goleman, Nussbaum et al) our
rational decision making processes depend upon our emotional repertoire in
some form or other, it seems misleading at least to state that emotions are
biological level phenomena, without further elucidation or description.
It seems to me that there is a choice, quite a radical difference, between
acknowledging a role for emotions in our intellectual processes (and
therefore ruling out the categorising of emotions as purely biological
phenomena) and treating the intellectual level as autonomous in the way that
you (and Pirsig) describe. This comes back to the post about marriage, which
I'm still thinking through my reply to John B on. What is in some way
disturbing for me is that I'm realising it's a significant area where I do
disagree with Pirsig. I haven't come across many of those!!
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:47 BST