Dear Gary,
You wrote 1/9 9:10 -0700 that you don't know whether my
'You wrote 31/8 18:21 -0700 essentially that Pirsig's MoQ is a imperfect map
of his Quality experience, his Reality'
'means that Pirsig's map is imperfect map of his Quality experience/his
Reality because all maps are less than and not equivalent to the territory'
or
'that Pirsig's map is flawed because of some failing of his to understand
his experience'.
I summarized what you wrote. You meant the first. (No wonder that you I
agree if my ambigious statement is interpreted thus.)
You asked me to explain:
'I object against the little word "valid" you slip in. This presumes the
map/territory metaphor (which I don't mind using) into a metaphysical split
(which I want to avoid).
I experience the "usefulness" of Pirsig's map. It obviously points me
towards my Quality/Reality. I don't know about its cause however. The cause
you give (similar structure of Pirsig's map and Quality/Reality) gives
another map than Pirsig's one metaphysical status.'
It may help if you substitute 'makes' for 'presumes'. Excuse me for my
faulty grammar.
You wrote 31/8 18:21 -0700:
'Maps/words are useful if they have a STRUCTURE SIMILAR to the territory!
... Pirsig's map is useful and valid because it outlines a structure that is
similar to that found in Quality. But Pirsig's maps are not the only valid
map of Quality/Reality.'
Words are useful if the experience they evoke somehow 'repeats' or
'predicts' other experience. They can help us handle that other experience
better.
The map/territory metaphor clarifies this relationship between two types of
experience and the usefulness of one type of experience to handle the other
type. Reading a map helps you not to get lost in the territory.
The map/territory metaphor does not yet rule out the essential equivalence
of both types of experience. Walking around in the territory may also help
reading the map!
The word 'valid' presumes another type of relationship between the words and
the other experience. The words are valid or not (if ...). You can't say
that the other experience is valid or not if it has a similar structure as
the words. It implicitly states that some types of experience are inherently
ONLY comparable to maps and other types of experience ONLY to territory. It
makes this split an essential one, a split that you have to make BEFORE the
word 'valid' can get meaning. The statement 'words are valid or not
depending on their relation to Reality' is an ontological (and therefore
metaphysical) statement. It says something about what types of experience
there are. Some types fall in the category 'words', others in the category
'Reality'. In this context the distinction between map and territory is not
a metaphor any more, but a set of names for these different ontological
categories.
A metaphysical split requires neither a '3rd person omniscient perspective'
nor the ability to use a word like 'valid'. Even a baby needs to make the
first metaphysical split between the patterns it recognizes in its
experiences and the still blurry, unpatterned rest before it can react to
its surroundings. This metaphysical split comes long before it can
distinguish between 'me' wanting something with 'it' and (after that)
between 'things like me' (subjects) wanting somethings with 'its' (objects).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST