Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic

From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:25:07 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic"

    On Saturday 12 February 2005 8:14 PM Scott writes to Ron:

    [Scott] Of course one can't actually know anything without reasoning about
    what is sensed. I thought that was understood, given Pirsig's statement of
    traditional empiricism as "reasoning about what the senses provide". The
    thing I object to is what follows, that "empiricism" be extended to cover
    our artistic, moral, and religious experience. And, just to be safe, I
    repeat that this does not imply that I consider that we can't know anything
    about art, morals, and religion. Just that it serves no purpose to extend
    the word "empirical" to cover them, and causes confusion if we do.

    Hi Scott and Ron and all,

    The example of the president that Pirsig uses to show that Quality in the
    MOQ 'social and intellectual levels' is 'subjective' seems to apply to what
    you are discussing. IMO it is an apt example to show the necessity of
    expanding the word 'empirical' to the direct experience of social order.

    IMO Direct experience can be expressed in a logical, analogical, or
    metaphorical way. Logic is defined. Analogy is undefined. Metaphor is
    defined-undefined. As order the metaphorical is defined in the social level,
    He is president. Metaphors in the other levels are undefined, He is
    beautiful.

    About our direct experience of the social level I would follow the guidance
    of caution proposed by George Gurdjieff:

    "My Dear and kind Grandfather, be so kind as to explain to me, if only in a
    general way, why those beings there are such that they take the 'ephemeral'
    for the 'real'.

    To this question of his grandson, Beelzebub replied thus:

    It was only during later periods that the three-brained beings of the planet
    Earth began to have this particularity in their psyche, and just this
    particularity arose in them only because their predominant part, which was
    formed in them as in all three-brained beings, gradually allowed other parts
    of their total presences to perceive every new impression without what is
    called 'being-Partkdolg-duty', but just merely as, in general, such
    impressions are perceived by the separate independent localizations existing
    under the name of being-centers present in the three-brained beings, or, as
    I should say in their language, they believe everything anybody says, and
    not solely that which they themselves have been able to recognize by their
    own sane deliberations.

    " In general, any new understanding is crystallized in the presence of these
    strange beings only if Smith speaks of somebody or something in a certain
    way; and then if Brown says the same, the hearer is quite convinced it is
    just so and couldn't possibly be otherwise............" Chapter 13: "Why
    in man's reason fantasy may be perceived as reality", Beelzebub's Tales to
    His Grandson.

    Joe

    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 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:54:54 GMT