Hi Jonathan:
You wrote:
> 1. THE TYRANNY OF LANGUAGE
> A memorial (to the firemen who died at the WTC) is meant to carry a
> message.
Yes, and the message it ought to carry as I interpret the MOQ (and in
the context of the debate about the particular memorial proposed) is
that an intellectual pattern of empirical truth is superior to a social
pattern of political correctness.
>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."
Couldn't help but think of the MD when you refer to the tower of Babel. (-
> 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.
Don't you think Pirsig was simply referring to empiricism which you, as
a scientist, rely on every day? That's how interpret 'agreement with
experience.'
>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).
Yes, in some cases truth is a social pattern. But you don't need a group
hug to know that sitting on a hot stove hurts. There is also the truth
about the content of your own mind which, unless you share it through
language or other symbols, is not an exclusive social pattern but rather
a conglomeration (often Babel) of all patterns.
> 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.
According to Hegel, the 'whole truth' is known only to the 'Absolute.'
Because human minds cannot know all of reality all at once, there
must be some mind that can because things don’t hang together by
themselves. They require a mind to make their existence intelligible.
>From the perspective of Hegel's Absolute, entities like mind and matter
are revealed to be simply two aspects of an organic whole, partial ways
of understanding an indivisible unity. Oops. Didn't mean to get off track
like that. Who cares about Hegel, anyway?
> 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.
Agree. But the truth of the three white fireman raising the flag is a
BETTER truth than a diversity-imposed, politically correct version of the
truth. That's what I understand the MOQ to say. Don't you?
> 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.
Engineering belongs mostly in the inorganic level with some spill over
to the biological with genetic bioengineering. Then there are the social
engineers, but their legitimacy is highly questionable. Medicine is
mostly biological level with some spill over to the social level with
psychiatry, another questionable pursuit. Game theory is social. The
modern university may not pride itself on its divisions, but in practice
that's how it presents itself and acts. I know of no college that operates
under a specific metaphysics or even a unified theory of knowledge. In
fact, postmodernists in many humanities departments are questioning
the legitimacy of science departments, accusing them of being part of
the white power structure. And there are other battles going on
constantly between various departments to serve various agendas. I
wish colleges would follow a interdisciplinary approach, but few do as
far as I know. If they did, what discipline would bring the departments
together? Surely not the MOQ. And not, according to you, Aristotle's
methods of classification although your disparagement strikes me as
peculiar coming from a biologist. Don't you guys still classify bugs and
things? And does your condemnation of Aristotle extend to Pirsig's
"logical consistency?"
Apologies for rambling so much. But since you accused me of being
"deeply mistaken" I felt obligated to reply in some depth.
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