ROGER ADDS MORE TO ROBERT'S PLATE
Rob, thanks for the great arguments. Let me know your thoughts on my
thoughts.
ROGER:
The essence of Robert's argument is that Cartesian dualism is different and
separate from SOM. The Cartesian duality is basically that "thinking stuff"
is separate "physical stuff" such as the body and the external world. The
achilles heel of Cartesian reality is interaction. How can immaterial mind
and material matter interact? In general, 20th Century philosophers have
tended to dismiss the Cartesian solution, instead replacing it with monistic
materialism...... Where all is matter, and mental events are explained by
material phenomenon. The Cartesian duality (from what I know of philosophy)
is pretty much dismissed today as a 300 year old wrong turn based on a
quaint, incomplete Newtonian scientific reality. If Pirsig had attacked
Cartesian duality, he would have indeed been attacking a Straw Man.
However, if it works for you, Robert, great! I am not suggesting that you
shouldn't believe in something because modern philosophers don't. You
probably do need to get to work on the interaction platypus though (may I
suggest you read Liebnitz or Hobbes for some inspiration along these lines).
The MOQ's Radical Empiricism is a monism that states that experience is
primary. All else, including mind and matter are abstractions from this
primary reality. They are great high quality abstractions, but assumptions
just the same. The benefit to the MOQ is that the only known monistic
structure of reality is that which is empirically verified. Reality is
empiricism itself. All other models of reality are truths with relative
strengths and weaknesses. The MOQ doesn't so much reject any of the other
models.... It transcends them
The MOQ is not so much anti-Cartesian, it is post-Cartesian.
By dividing experience itself up, The MOQ can explain and connect matter and
mind by defining them as different conceptualized forms of experience.
Discrete patterns connected by biological and social experience. The MOQ
assumes nothing but empiricism itself and then weaves patterns of experience
to form the intellectual level that then abstracts the other levels and
itself. The MOQ even transcends itself by explaining that even it is just
one particular model of reality that is only the highest quality pattern
until a better model comes along.
The MOQ never asks us to ignore parts of reality (John and you seem to share
this gross misinterpretation) It states that the other models of the last
2000 years have done just this. Mind and matter and idealism and "all is
energy" are all considered viable TRUTHS within the MOQ. The MOQ is not
considered a truth in the other metaphysics. So, which passes your
Krishnamirta test??? Which is ignoring truth?
ROBERT:
Now to the levels....First, I don't see a physical/biological split within
experience. For example, when a tree "defies" gravity by growing upwards, it
can be explained by photosynthesis which is a physical theory of matter and
energy. It is only behavior of *conscious* beings that seem to violate
physics as their choices appear arbitrary from a physics viewpoint.
Cartesian dualism could possibly explain the conundrum by directly by
incorporating "will" into consciousness. This is complicated, but it is more
intuitive that my "will" violates physics than biology.
ROGER:
First of all, physics isn't violated by biology. It is redefined. Biology
is not unnatural, it is nature itself. It expands "inorganic" nature and
develops it into new patterns. That is to me what the levels represent.
They represent not "things", but value patterns, or going back to earlier
terms, to patterns of experience. Biology doesn't violate pysical laws, it
transcends and redefines them.
ROBERT:
As far as the morality part, I have to admit that life is better than
nonlife. This is something I knew before Pirsig, and due to the explanation
above, I don't think he proved it.
ROGER:
I think Pirsig would agree. His metaphysics doesn't contradict this, but it
is not the first TRUTH to state as much.
ROBERT:
Second, I don't really see a biological/social split within my experiences.
I think you explained that our social values are emotional and our
biological values are of the senses. But William James also correctly
explained that there is no fundamental difference between emotion and
sensory perception. Anger, for example, is a sensory perception just like
hunger or thirst. Hunger is a feeling in the stomach, whereas anger is a
feeling in the chest, clenched muscles, breath, blood pressure, etc. Anger,
consequently, might be more social then hunger, but it is as fundamentally
biological as is hunger, which --as explained above -- is fundamentally
physical. Emotions don't have to be social. From what I remember from
psychology, neurosurgeons can stimulate certain emotions just as they can
stimulate certain sensations. The mystery is why does anger -- which can be
*physically* observed in the body -- feel like anger? Similar to the MOQ,
the answer given by Cartesian dualism says reality is primarily experienced,
which can't be further explained. Anger is anger. Unlike the MOQ, there is
not the confused split between anger and hunger.
ROGER:
Here I believe you attack not Pirsig, but Bodvar. In fact, to be honest I
think you
are 100% right. The "emotions are social" argument seems patently absurd to
me, and contrary to everything I know and experience. The two are connected
and interwoven, but biological stimulus/response and emotion are synonymous,
and primary placement of this defining biological value into the social
level seems odd.
ROBERT:
As far as the morality part, I again have to give in that many lives are
more important than one life. Again, I don't think this is proven by the
levels, but intuitive from my experiences.
ROGER:
Okay.
ROBERT:
Third, I don't really see a social/intellectual split. I find this part of
the MOQ very confused. My confusion started a long time ago when I could not
think of one hypothetical example where knowledge of the levels could help
me make more moral decisions-- given I was open-minded and sensitive to
reality. (This was in contrast to the part of the MOQ which stated that
knowledge begins with experience.. That helped a lot, because it justified
what I had learned from Eastern philosophy.) To get though my confusion, I
asked people on the list where the knowledge of this split has changed their
opinions on moral issues not discussed by Pirsig. It seemed that one could
only retroactively choose the level fit, *after* his/her experiences told
him/her right and wrong. After weeks of debate, I got Roger to admit that
the levels -- by themselves --had not directly changed his opinions on
anything -- he relies on experience but uses the MOQ as a table to sort his
experiences out. Last month Diane said that we ought to understand the
levels but then transcend them.
ROGER:
What does this have to do with the social/intellectual split? Your attack
is on the need for levels at all, not on the Social/Intellectual moral code.
Again though, Pirsig does not reject intellectual patterns, he transcends
them. He provides intellectual models only to warn us that Dynamic
Experience is morally superior.
ROBERT:
With no examples, it is no wonder I was confused understanding the levels!
I wanted to test the levels against my experiences and intuition, but the
levels require experiences and intuition. So why not drop them altogether
and go where I was before --with my experiences and intuition!
ROGER:
Pirsig does not exclude, he includes and transcends.
But Then Again.........
Roger
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST