From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 22:50:03 GMT
On 27 Jan, 2003 10:30PM Jonathan writes:
> Hi Platt, Matt, Joe, Glenn and whoever else I may have missed:
>
> My e-mail has been making problems so I have had to check the archives.
> Apologies if I missed anything significant in the "absolutely objective"
> thread. This post is an attempt to resolve the main point of contention in
> that thread.
>
> So far, Matt has supported my "True is a noun" slogan (representing
> relativism and pragmatism), while Platt and Joe have championed the
idealist
> campaign for the absolute ("Truth is a noun").
>
> I recognise that Platt and Joe's position is ethically motivated - to
ensure
> that there can be no compromise between right and wrong. I think that
their
> approach has its own problems, and leads to fundamentalism.
Hi Jonathan, Matt, and All,
joe: i recognise that Jonathan's and Matt's position is existentially
motivated - to ensure that there can be no division into real and
intentional existence. I think their approach has its own problems, and
leads to nihilism and defines 'freedom' as what is not.
> As I see it, Pirsig debunks two different absolutist approaches:
>
> 1. Logical positivism - the position that everything is cause and effect,
> governed by fixed laws of nature.
>
> 2. Mysticism - the position that empirical reality is an illusion, while
the
> real absolute truth is waiting to be discovered by some process of
> "enlightenment".
>
> Both these positions are Platonic (idealist), and the most prominent
> philosophical argument in history is the conflict between them. It is the
> basis of the conflicts between Science, Art, Religion, etc.
>
joe: Persig proposes: a baby learns, the quality of rhetoric is experienced.
I propose that this is possible if I accept the instinctive sensing of
reality. Is this instinctive sensing a pragmatic or mystical approach to
acquiring knowledge? Since the instinctive sense apprehends the
indefinable, I would say it is a mystical approach to gaining knowledge. My
experience is my own. The knowledge of three absolutes existence, purpose
(value), and quality is instinctively sensed.
> If we are to be true to the MoQ, we have to find an approach that
dissolves
> the conflicts.
joe: crunch time comes when I try to describe patterns (sq) how they are
known? how they preserve dq? how they arise or are constructed? I do not
propose a division of existence into real and intentional existence.
I create patterns through my instinct to learn and memory. I attach words
to them. Analogies and metaphors are triggers for "associations".
Another word enters my thoughts when I think of patterns "attention" or
"consciousness" but not as the properties of a soul. By drugs and sleep I
have some control over my attention, although it does wander a lot.
Traitor.
My simple statement is that by the repeated uses of an instinctive sense for
a specific experience I create a memory pattern which becomes the words of
speech. The operation of the instinctive sense is in some way necessary for
a pattern, but the patterns created are a part of memory not the instinctive
sense, though dq changes instinct.
Is sq a proper designation for a pattern partly made by experience and
memory? How can an instinct changed by dq leave a pattern in memory? How
is the pattern shaped?
If everything is merely pushed around why tell stories? Is there a struggle
between science and art? Is everybody different and can there be no
commonality to being sentient? Does a pattern require the same intentional
existence of SOM?
Are patterns open to the same criticisms as SOM? Crunch Time!
> The solution that works for me is to replace the word ABSOLUTE with
> GENERALITY.
> Thus - it is GENERALLY moral for the doctor to favour the patient over the
> germ.
>
> Platt is not going to be completely comfortable with this, so I need to
make
> it completely clear that I don't mean GENERALLY to be a weak word, but a
> strong and rigorous word. A Generality is to be taken as a law, subject to
> protection enforcement. It is not valid for a doctor to come along and
> casually reject the law. To reject the law, he must come and prove
> convincingly "I here have an exceptional circumstance because of x,y,z". I
> think this debunks the notion that I support some sort of wishy-washy
> "anything goes" morality.
>
> I find a lot of support for my suggestion:
> 1. In the critique on Franz Boas and his breed of anthropologists (ch. 4
of
> Lila), Pirsig states
> "If you can't generalize from data, there's nothing else you can do with
it
> either."
> "A science without generalization is no science at all".
> IMHO, this extends to morality and ethics. The MoQ is a prime example - an
> attempt to provide a GENERAL framework for solving particular problems.
>
> 2. The rules and laws are all SQ patterns. As soon as one allows for DQ,
> their non-absolutism becomes clear. This is summed up (generalized) in the
> simple truism "To every rule there is an exception".
>
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Jonathan
joe: i have my own thoughts.
Joe,
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 Jan 29 2003 - 22:48:41 GMT