From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 19:15:27 BST
Hi David --
msh said:
> 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 replied:
> 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 rejoins:
> 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'.
Of course I take exception to DMB's statement that Essentialism is
"quasi-religious nonsense". I also dispute his assertion that the MOQ is
"empirical from head to toe".
This obsession with empiricism seems to be a hang-up peculiar to Mr. Pirsig
and his MOQ defenders. There is nothing particularly "empirical" about this
philosophy, and the attempt to portray its core essence, Quality, as an
"empirical principle" strikes me as somewhat juvenile. The only motive I
can see for insisting on an empirical foundation for the MOQ is to associate
this term with scientific methodology so that it may be promoted as having a
"scientific basis". That is misleading and untrue.
Empirical is a term used to distinguish knowledge gained from direct
observation or experience [*a postoriori*] from ideas or concepts conceived
intuitively [*a priori*].
To the extent that scientific conclusions are based on experiential
observations that are repeatable and universally testable, they have
practical application and may be considered "factual". This is the
methodology of logical positivism, and it implies that statements or
propositions have "factual meaning" only if they meet the test of
observation. Logical positivists argue that metaphysical expressions such
as "Nothing exists except energy" and "Everything is part of one
all-encompassing spirit" cannot be tested empirically. According to the
verifiability theory of meaning, these expressions have no factual cognitive
meaning.
Philosophy does not work this way because it deals with "ultimates" and
"absolutes" whose reality is not testable. Its methodology is logic and
reason, and the conclusions it draws are "metaphysical hypotheses" rather
than facts. Since theories relating to proprietary awareness, absolute
truth, primary cause, epistemology, ontology, and teleology are not
empirically verifiable, their investigation and development are the province
of Philosophy. While the philosophy of religion is a valid field of
discourse, the belief systems of religion should not be confused with
metaphysical theory. This does not mean that metaphyics can not have points
of agreement with religious beliefs, however.
I believe I have meticulously avoided unnecessary use of religious terms in
postulating my philosophy of Essence, and I make no claim that it has an
empirical or "scientific" foundation. I also clearly label my Creation
ontology a hypothesis. (In fact, I've devoted a good bit of space to
debunking the notion that scientific methodology is the key to unlocking
knowledge about reality.) At the same time, to refuse to support
"spiritualistic" concepts that also happen to be the core belief of religion
would be disingenuous on my part.
The philosophical movement has generally contended that questions having to
do with the true nature of reality, and the individual's relationship to it,
are extremely important and meaningful in terms of human life. The
investigation of such questions is therefore considered valid whether or not
its results can be verified objectively. I would wish that MOQ's author had
devoted more time and effort to these vital issues, and less in trying to
convince his readers that his ontologically-deficient thesis is universally
"acceptable" to the scientific elitists.
--Ham
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 : Mon Apr 11 2005 - 21:02:55 BST