From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Nov 27 2002 - 15:01:37 GMT
Hi Matt:
> I think we have come to the crux of our discussion:
>
> >I understand the appearance-reality split to be
> >exactly the same as the subject-object split and the mind-body split, all
> >based on H.O I.E.-- Hypothesis of Independent Existence.
>
> Most philosophers don't take all of these distinctions to be exactly the
> same, especially the first two (appearance-reality and subject-object) with
> the last (mind-body). This is actually why I think there is trouble
> interpreting what SOM is. I think Pirsig conflates the subject-object
> split with the mind-body split. In my Rortyan interpretation, I interpret
> SOM as primarily being the appearance-reality split. The mind-body split
> is a distinction that is in the main by-passed by many contemporary
> philosophers (or, at the least, by-passed by the philosophers I've
> studied). So, I will resist any attempt to conflate appearance-reality
> with mind-body.
Well, I don't know much about "many contemporary philosophers" but
perhaps instead of mind-body it would have been clearer if I had said
mind-matter. To me the appearance-reality split is exactly the same as
the split between the mental world and material world which, in turn, is
the same as subject-object split. (Better to leave "reality" out of the
equation because in a larger sense "appearances" are "real," too).
> Once
> we make that leap, we can make the leap to Sellars' slogan, "All awareness
> is a linguistic affair."
Absent the context in which Sellars made that assertion, he seems to
deny that my cat is aware--a rather dubious conclusion don't you agree?
> No, you're not raising my "ire." The point I wanted to get across was why
> you trust Watzlawick and Pirsig and not Rorty. Why you trust Pirsig's hot
> stove example. I would say its because we have an intuition that Quality
> is a preconceptual, prelinguistic reality. Why else would Pirsig trust the
> force of his example? For instance, I don't take Pirsig's example to be
> persuasive at all. I understand the intuition he's refering to, I once
> found it persuasive, but now I find that incorporating this intuition
> causes more trouble then its worth and its best to suppress it, as Rorty
> recommends. Rorty suggests changing our intuitions (based on the intuition
> that all intuitions are social constructions). This is why I see the
> problem as about competing intuitions.
My dictionary defines "intuition" as "direct perception independent of
any reasoning process; immediate apprehension." In other words, direct
experience, pure awareness, non-verbal understanding, a visceral fact
intellectually meaningless but possessing value. I don't think you can
change your intuitions any more than you can change you sense of
being. Nor do I understand why anyone, if even they could, would want
to. Your intuitive sense of Quality is the first step in your ability to
survive.
> I'm not sure if I'm engaging you concretely enough, though, because I'm
> having trouble understanding what you mean by this paragraph:
>
> >So when I talk about intuitions, perceptions, conceptions, language,
> >first and second order realities, I'm coming down on the appearance,
> >subjective, mind side of the split or, if you prefer the Idealist, not
> >Realist side.
I agree we are not engaging one another very well because our
"vocabularies" don't seem to match up. (You recall my difficulty
understanding all the Rorty words and phrases you use. Invention of
vocabulary is the mother of confusion to the uninitiated.) Further, I'm in
the unavoidable position of trying to put into words what I mean by
"experience" and "awareness" which, like DQ, is impossible to point to
and say, "that's it" because it (awareness) is doing the pointing. It's like
St. Augustine's answer to the riddle of time" When I don't ask the
question, I know the answer."
Sorry I can't contribute anything new to the conversation.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 27 2002 - 15:12:11 GMT