Erin,
ERIN:
>Okay I understand why you are saying that Pirsig means "observe" literally.
Good.
>But I don't think he takes it as far as you think. I think it is related to a
>previous discussion that Rick and I were having (earlier this month in the
>History thread) that Whorf claimed language determined perception and in
>reality language only influences perception.
>I think you are trying to put Pirsig in the same boat as Whorf in going to far
>in saying that culture determines reality not just influences reality. But I
>would say that Pirsig DOES NOT go to that extreme.
You seem to fail to appreciate that Pirsig agrees with Whorf. Pirsig cites
Whorf's research in Lila as evidence supporting Pirsig's position. Rick was
trying to convince you that the Sapir/Whorf conclusion was based on flimsy
science. Diana's post about it is - MD Problems with Pirsig, Mar 03, 2000:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0003/0014.html
ERIN:
>Again I would argue that
>it is a filter that may distort it but the filter doesn't completely determine
>what you are see. You mentioned where he talks about the Cleveland Harbor
>effect--- to me he is saying right there he understands how his own false
>beliefs can "trick" his perception ...
Agreed. There is nothing controversial about this example. It's not even an
example of a cultural static filter. He just believed he was somewhere he
wasn't and it threw him for a loop. And he does say that he saw things
correctly, but just disregarded them or thought of ad hoc excuses for them.
ERIN:
>... and on page 387 he gives a biological explanation of that
>dharmakaya light.
No. He thinks its an objective phenomena - an inorganic pattern.
A biological explanation suggests that he thinks the light was generated by
his brain - that it's subjective. He doesn't think this.
>Let me use an example that is given in some perception classes. There will be
>a picture of these random splotches and when you ask somebody what it is they
>say they have no idea. If you tell them that it a picture of a dalmation then
>they all of a sudden see it (it was hard to see at first because the spaces in
>between the splotches is what looked like a dalmation) but people have to be
>told it is there before they see it. I think there is a bias to look at
>occurrences (splotches) rather then the nonoccurrences (space in between the
>splotches). So if we have this "bias" you can see due to the cleveland Harbor
>effect that our knowledge system is filtered right? This is also known as the
>confirmation bias. If we have a belief of something we tend to notice the
>occurrences of it and IGNORE THE nonoccurrences of it. So accept the postive
>evidence and ignore the negative evidence.
Agreed. I think these are valid psychological effects. What I think is
radical is that Pirsig takes the idea to extremes, as is evidenced by the
Dharmakaya light passage and the sweeping sense of the 'cultural selection
of inorganic value to observe and ignore' quote.
>I think Pirsig tries to avoid any biases, don't you?
Well, he doesn't entertain competing theories very seriously, does he? He
claims the Dharmakaya light is an objective phenomena, and everyone would
see it and think so, if it weren't for the culture being in denial over it.
That's pretty much the end of it. Seems pretty biased to me.
What's more, this aspect of the MOQ leaves the door open to all kinds of
nonsense, such as the belief that Sasquatch is an objective phenomena if
only the culture weren't so set on denying it. And guess what? The next
inevitable step is the belief in institutionalized denial, whereby people
become convinced the culture tries to enforce the mythos for its own sake.
We already have the cult notion that the government is covering up
extraterrestial visitations. We'd have more of this under the MOQ.
The belief encouraged by the MOQ that parts of the real world are
blocked from actual view by cultural filters and enforced by cultural
immune systems paves the way for this kind of conspiratorial, cultish
mindset.
ERIN:
>I think it is good you are skeptical of the MOQ
I think it is good, too. Glad you agree.
ERIN:
>but I would like to argue that if you take it too far you will fall
>victim to this confirmation bias yourself and find a whole bunch of
>evidence discrediting the MoQ while ignoring all the evidence
>supporting MoQ.
I'm not too bothered by this, because the reverse is just as true, and
my presence adds some balance.
ERIN:
>I think Pirsig attempts to reduce bias while knowing that his map is
>influencing how he perceives reality.
No. That's what *I'm* doing :)
Glenn
--__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 - 16:01:54 BST