Roger and all thread followers:
Roger, based on your last post it seems we're not as far apart as I
thought. We seem to be talking past each other in some ways . We're
saying the same thing in different ways and/or using the same words with
different ideas behind them. A lot of it has to do with confusions like
that, I think. But there is still a genuine unresolved disagreement or
two.
First I have to confess a little frustration. I'm grateful that you take
the time to reply directly, but it seems you've been sailing right past
main points. It seems that you ignored all the Pirsig quotes I dug up
and provided. Am I being unclear in my posts? Maybe you'll do me a favor
and indulge me in a little of that "I hear what you're saying when
you..." kind of treatment. I realize that you're not my therapist or
anything, but the feeling that no one is listening is really starting to
bug me. Perhaps I ask for too much?
The following ideas were expressed by Pirsig in his lecture SODV. I
re-read it with our debate in mind. I was looking for specific answers
about...well, about reality and observation. I'm just going to put the
out there as way to ask you about the one disagreement I can't seem to
let go of. Hopefully you've noticed the main idea I've been trying to
get across, even if you don't agree with it or understand exactly. These
quotes get at the issue pretty directly. You know, the intellect is
mediated through all the previous levels and so percieves reality
indirectly, as opposed to mystical experience or DQ. It gets at this
issue of what static patterns are; conceptualizations and abstractions
or are they the world? This is where we disagree. The first cut is the
deepest and all that.
"We no longer need to claim that we ourselves alter scientific reality
when we look at it and know about it - a claim that Einstein regarded as
part of a "shaky game"."
"The MOQ says objects are composed of "Substance" but it says that this
substance can be defined more precisely as "stable inorganic patterns of
value". The objects look and smell and feel the same either way. The MOQ
agrees with scientific realism that these inorganic patterns are
completely real, but it says that this reality is ultimatley a deduction
made in the first months of an infant's life and supported by culture in
which the infant grows up... Bohr is sometimes mistakenly thought to say
that thsi inorganic level does not exist. He does not deny this
inorganic reality. He simply says that the properties the physicist
describes cannot be said to reside at this level."
"A third piece of evidence that reveals the similarity betweem the MOQ
and Complementarity occurs when Bohr says, "We are suspended in
language," the MOQ completely agrees. In the MOQ we see that each higher
level of evolution rests on and is supported by the next lower level of
evolution and cannot do without it. There is no intellect that can
independently reach and make contact with inorganic patterns. It must go
through both society and biology to reach them. In the past science has
insisted on the necessity of biological proofs, that is, proofs in terms
of sense data, and it has tried to discard social patterns as a source
of scientific knowledge. When Bohr says we are suspended in language I
think he means you cannot get rid of the social contexts either."
I think its crystal clear. Pirsig is pretty explicit here, don't you
think?
Rich said the same things the other day. That was pretty clear too. I
hope you'll address this issue directly. Thanks for your time. Looking
forward to your response.
David B.
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 - 16:03:09 BST