Hi Sam,
> > "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.
Excellent points. Thanks. I think Pirsig's definition of truth would be
better if it was changed to "economy and elegance of explanation" to
reflect your aesthetic criterion. There are indeed other criteria of truth
such as truth based on the authority of specialists and the coherence
theory of truth so relevant to mathematics. I believe it is these other
criteria, in addition to personal judgments, that Pirsig was referring to
when he talked about truths like paintings in an art gallery.
> 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?
No, I didn't mean to imply a moral hierarchy, such as philosophy is
better than physics. I was trying to make an analogy between areas of
knowledge and Pirsig's levels in order to clarify where I think certain
subjects belong, a question that has provoked considerable debate
here before. Pirsig claimed "nothing gets left out" of the four levels. So I
thought it might be helpful to show what I think gets put in and where.
Using departments in a university seemed a reasonable way to
accomplish this without going into endless, numbing detail.
> 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!!
I haven't read Goleman, Nussbaum, etc. But I don't think we're in
disagreement. I apologize if I gave the impression that emotions that
arise in the biological level from the imperatives of survive and
procreate are restricted to that level. I didn't mean to imply that. Nor
does Pirsig IMO. Recall that Pirsig said the intellectual level began in
service to promote society which in turn was formed to insure human
survival. I think Marco has it right by including emotions in the
intellectual level but "refined" from the biological level (into love,
compassion, etc.) where they first emerged as a static latch of DQ.
A question for you, Sam. How does a fifth level of "art" grab you? We've
been kicking that issue around since the beginning, and if you've
expressed your view on the matter before, please forgive the
forgetfulness of an old man.
Platt
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