From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 21:51:00 BST
Scott, msh, Ham and all MOQers:
Scott said:
The MOQ claims to be empirical, but it isn't, no more than any other
metaphysics. It too depends on non-empirical moves.
msh says:
Has Pirsig claimed that the MOQ is "more" empirical than other
metaphysics? I don't even understand what this would mean. Pirsig
is quite clear that every metaphysics derives from unprovable
assumptions. I know we agree that the existence of Quality is
empirically verifiable; and it's empirically verifiable that every
sentient will move toward Quality if it is free to do so. How much
more empiricism do we need?
dmb says:
For the most part I agree with Mark. Here I would add that one of the main
reasons that metaphysics has been under attack by the postmodernists, and
rightly so, is that so many of the systems depended on assertions for which
there is no evidence. The attack is upon quasi-religious nonsense. Ham's
essentialism springs to mind. (Nothing personal, Ham. You seem like a nice
guy and all. But I think that your system is exactly the kind of thing that
gives metaphysics a bad name.)
Scott said:
No, my complaint is that the way MOQ and its defenders stretch the
use of the word 'empirical' to cover the whole metaphysics is, (a)
incoherent, and (b) a debasing of the word 'empirical'.
dmb says:
Since I recently asserted that the MOQ was "empirical from head to toe" its
pretty clear that your complaint is aimed at me. Let me try to explain it
this way. The MOQ's basic structure, as you know, divides DQ from sq and
then subdivides sq into the four levels. Basically, this divides our
experience into five kinds. Each person can know all five kinds. We can
experience sunshine on our faces, we can feel the heat. And when we are
looking at the behaviour of inorganic quality for scientific purposes, we
can measure heat (or whatever) very carefully and draw conclusions based on
that data. We experience biological quality when hungry,tired or lusting. We
experience the social level in even more ways. Sahme, guilt, pride and
patriotism. We can experience the world of ideas. We can know direct
experience (DQ) with more a little more difficulty, but this is an
experience we can know too. That's what I mean by saying the MOQ is
empirical from head to toe. The basic structure is based on various kinds of
experience. Now if you are asking about empirical evidence for the
CONCLUSIONS Pirsig has drawn, I'd simply say that is a weird question.
Newton did not discover the law of gravity written down for him inside the
apple, the law is a conclusion is based on the behavior of falling apples.
In the same way, Pirsig's switch from laws to preferences is a conclusion
based on the behavior of particles. The data does not FORCE us to make one
and only one conclusion. It is simply that the conclusion is BASED on
evidence. It simply agrees with experience. There may be other, equally
valid, conclusions that can be based on that same evidence, but as Mark
already pointed out the idea of inorganic quality making preferences works
well with the MOQ's overall scheme.
msh says:
The MOQ defenders come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Can
you direct me to a Pirsig passage where he distorts and debases the
word "empirical." I'm not saying your wrong, I just want some
textual support for the basis of further discussion.
dmb says:
I have repeatedly pointed out to Scott that the idea that sensory-experience
is the only kind that counts as empirical is actually a collapsed and
extremely narrow version. It is Modern. It is SOM, where the only things
that can be scientifically verified are "things. It can only deal with the
world of "its", objects with simple location. Pirsig's expansion of the idea
that any of our experiences can be used is not new or unique and is in fact
only a repair job. It only restores what Modernity had collasped. One of the
main reasons that science became "amoral" and value-free is because of this
collapse. The rescue of empiricism from this materialistic view is an
essential feature of his attack on SOM.
Scott said:
.....................It is the basis for saying that intellectual morality
trumps social morality, etc., so it is definitely part of the MOQ, its
linchpin, in fact. That is, the higher levels are higher because they offer
more dynamic freedom. But how is it empirical? ...After all, shouldn't one
be
suspicious when those who enjoy intellectual activities claim that
intellectual morality takes precedence?
Now I do think that intellectual morality takes precedence, but I would not
claim that it does because the empirical facts show that it does. In fact,
the MOQ's ultimate justification for this, as I understand it, is an appeal
to mysticism (to establish the reality of DQ). Of course, it tries to make
out that this is an empirical move, but it isn't. It depends on an a priori
selecting out of certain mystical strains and ignoring others.
dmb says:
I don't think we need to deal with DQ at all in addressing the question of
whether or not the superiority of the intellect over the social level. It
seems to me that the evidence for that assertion can be found in history and
in our own experience. Again, this is not the kind of data we can find in a
microscope. I mean, we can't compare social and intellectual values by
looking at stars or rocks. But if you suspend your disbelief just long
enough to consider the possiblity that empirical evidence goes beyond mere
sensory experience, I think its clear that experience tells us so. Again,
the evidence does not force us to this conclusion, but the conclusion is
supported by the evidence, is based on experience.
Would I be wrong to assume that you believe that there can be only one valid
conclusion based on empirical evidence? I get the impression that you have a
whole grab bag of weird assumptions like that. Maybe this is part of the
reason I find your posts so confusing. I just don't understand how your mind
works. It looks very strange from here. You can write to me off-line if you
prefer. More likely you'll just be insulted, but I'd really like to know. Is
English your second language? Were you raised by dyslexics? What's the deal?
I'm extremely curious to know about the origins and background of such an
unusual mind.
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 22:03:34 BST