1. THE TYRANNY OF LANGUAGE
2. THE NATURE OF TRUTH
3. MoQ and ACADEMIC HIERACHY
Hi Platt and everyone (inc. note to Marco),
Here is overdue response to the "MOQ as a moral guide" discussion, AKA
"Truth and Reality", AKA "History".
Platt, I am addressing this mostly to you because I think that you are
deeply mistaken in your approach. I haven't been involved in the discussion
till now, and much of what I needed to say has already been said, but I can
still add a little to the discussion.
1. THE TYRANNY OF LANGUAGE
A memorial (to the firemen who died at the WTC) is meant to carry a message.
That puts it in the category of language, whether or not the statue bears a
written inscription. The memorial itself conveys a few symbols that evoke
the meaning of the message, though those symbols can never completely
capture the entire meaning intended.
Obviously, much is implied by the artist, and much is inferred by the
viewer, and these do not necessarily match. In this particular case, there
is an obvious danger that the viewers might infer a racial bias never
intended by the artist. THERE IS NO COMPLETE SOLUTION TO THIS. The very idea
of capturing a message in a few symbols (i.e. language) invites errors.
Pirsig presents this in his SODV paper by quoting Bohr's biographer, Ruth
Moore:
"A dozen physicists were shouting in a dozen languages for the floor.
Individual arguments were breaking out in all parts of the room. Lorentz,
who was presiding, pounded to restore order. He fought to keep the
discussion within the bounds of amity and order. But so great was the noise
and the commotion that Ehrenfest slipped up to the blackboard, erased some
of the figures that filled it, and wrote: `The Lord did there confound the
language of all the earth.'
As the embattled physicists suddenly recognized the reference to the
confusion of languages that beset the building of the tower of Babel, a roar
of laughter went up. The first round had ended."
Babel is indeed the symbol of the tyranny of language. I recently went to a
fascinating talk by religious author Dr. Aviva Zornberg
(I must talk about that some time - the talk on a religious theme turned out
to be about SQ and DQ, though this was never specified, just something I
inferred!). In her talk, Zornberg quoted George Steiner: "Language is the
main instrument of man's refusal to accept the world as it is." (After
Babel, 1975).
2. THE NATURE OF TRUTH
Pirsig: "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with
experience and economy of explanation."
Platt, here your concept of truth is undermined by the very definition of
truth you yourself quoted. If truth is dependent on "agreement with
experience", then your truth and my truth may be different since we have
different prior experiences. This is not the same as saying that anything
goes: there is a large body of Common Truths born of Common Experience (you
can call this the human condition). IMO there is a strong case for calling
Truth a Social pattern
(Note to Marco - this would fit in with my 3+1 idea).
On another note, it is good for a message to be True, but does it tell the
whole truth? Taken at face value, the witnesses legal oath is stupid -
nobody starts his evidence stating what he had for breakfast, how he chose
his socks and tie etc. The point is to give whatever truths are relevant.
You show me a case where prosecution and defense agree on what is relevant
(let alone true!) and I'll show you a back-room plea bargain.
Tat WTC fireman's memorial can never show the whole truth. It can at best
show a glimpse. It can do that by faithfully copying an image, by creating a
new image, or by introducing abstract elements - truth is sometimes BEST
captured by caricature and satire.
3. MoQ and ACADEMIC HIERACHY
PLATT
>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....
Platt, here you show what is wrong with the Church of Reason. Your hierarchy
makes no clear place for fields like engineering and medicine. Is Roger's
much loved Game Theory intellectual (math) or social? No Platt, the modern
university prides itself not on its divisions, but on encouraging
INTERDISCIPLINARY approaches. I should also add that your whole hierarchy is
something born of Aristotelian philosophy. I think it unfortunate that
Pirsig got too bogged down with trying to make his own hierarchy (the
4-layer MoQ), but this takes us back to point 1 (The tyranny of language) -
in any symbolic representation of reality (i.e. a metaphysics), there will
be room for errors.
Thanks to all for reading, and apologies for butting in so late . . .
Jonathan
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