Platt,
It will be good to clarify this aspect of the conversation as I feel it
might represent a Great Rift in our respective understanding and
relationship to MOQ. Happy to clarify:-)
You quoted Pirsig's "tests for truth" as follows:
"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience,
and economy of explanation." (8)
Here we have 3 factors in determining Truth. I'm curious which
"experience" should be used for the above comparison, according to you.
Are we talking about each individual's "experience" ? Are we referring
to the collective knowledge of our times as codified in science or
philosophy or religion or art? Are we talking about observed Data?
My point (and I believe Matt's if I'm not completely mistaken) is that
whatever definition you apply to "experience" is going to result in a
set that is greatly defined within time and space. It cannot be
ahistorical. It cannot be Universal. Even if we were to compare an Idea
for agreement with the entirety of recorded human literature it would
still be "out of date" the instant someone somewhere writes something
new.
The cry for Solidarity is the appeal for the inclusion of experience,
rather than the exclusion of experience. An idea that is true (as it
compares to your personal set of experience) isn't very useful if it
contradicts my personal experience. Rather we engage in conversation to
find where our experience intersects and use that collective experience
(that solidarity) to then test our ideas for agreement. Is this really
any different than the scientific method? Should we really label ideas
as Truthful if they only agree with an extremely limited range of
experiences?
I reject that notion that Pirsig would suggest a Morality (collection of
Quality judgements) as being Universal or ahistorical. He clearly
intends, IMO, that Quality judgements are assessments made as needed.
Today's High Quality is tomorrow's most rigid Static Pattern.
Does that clarify my concerns?
With hope,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of Platt Holden
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:21 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD Irrationality
Hi Kevin:
> With all respect, I find that you consistantly ignore the part about
> "agreement with experience".
>
> As Matt has so eloquently articulated, the position of Rorty and
> pragmatism is that "experience" is not ahistorical and never can be,
> n'est-ce pas?
>
> Appeals to building shared vocabulary and solidarity are exactly the
> exercise necessariy to define the "experience" that we must compare
> our ideas with.
>
> You would rescue "individual freedom" from "selfish solidarity", but
> isn't this just Anarchy and Social Darwinism at it's basest form or
> pure Egoism at it's highest? Shouldn't the "experience" by which we
> measure an Idea for Quality be as inclusive and collective as
> possible?
I'm confused by your definition of "experience." By your questions it
seems to have some sort of collective rather than an individual aspect,
as if one's experience isn't valid unless confirmed by some group or
other. Is this a correct interpretation of your view?
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
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 - 16:06:34 BST