From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 16:42:50 GMT
On 4 Nov 2004 at 7:20, Richard Loggins wrote:
Just because it is an assumption to begin the defn of his metaphysics
doesn't mean hecan't beserious or literal about it.
msh said:
Agreed. But it does mean that he can't prove that it is literally
true. So the question is WHY would he claim it's literally true when
doing so isn't necessary to jump-start his metaphysics? When doing
so puts him in the metaphysically vulnerable position of having to
claim he's experienced some sort of mystical revelation?"
msh later:
If Pirsig believes the literal truth of his assumption, then he has
left philosophy and lept into mysticism, and should be taken no more
seriously than any other self-proclaimed mystic. For my own selfish
reasons, I am reluctant to believe this.
rich:
There you go again. Why do you assume that just because he is literal
and serious about his claim that Quality creates actual minds and
actual bodies that he has lelft philosophy and lept into mysticism?
It does not necassarily follow. Isn't it possilble that he came to
this conclusion through an intellectual hypothesis that he finds
logically sound, that is no more mystical than the hypotheis that
subjects and objects are primary?
msh says:
Sure it's possible. But he doesn't present such an hypothesis. He
just SAYS that S&O are created by Quality.
rich:
Further, if a paliontologist claims that an asteroid wiped out the
dinosaurs, but doesn't have proof, does this mean, according to you,
that he is better off watering down the claim to that of a
metaphorical asteroid?
msh says:
This is a moot question, as there is plenty of evidence for such an
assertion. However, if someone without evidence claimed that it is
literally true than an asteroid wiped out the dinos, then, yes, I
would say his belief has a mystical not empirical basis.
rich:
Finally, I wonder why you say this claim is unnecessary! to jump-
start his metaphysics, when by all accounts it, alongwith the
dynamic/static split,were the key insights for him.
msh says:
Yes, key insights. Assumptions. No proof. Look, Rich, it's
obviously important to you that Pirsig believes the literal truth of
his assumptions. It's not for me.
Why don't we just leave it at that?
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 : Thu Nov 04 2004 - 19:11:47 GMT