From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 17:18:47 BST
Hi Platt:
Platt (previously)
> > You have misinterpreted Pirsig's premise. He doesn't say Quality exists
> > independently of conscious sensibility. He says Quality is experience,
> > meaning that valuistic judgment are intrinsic to experience, i.e.
values
> > are not something separate from conscious sensibility as you suggest.
Platt on 5/3:
> In Chapter 5 of Lila, Pirsig explicitly states: "Quality is direct
> experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions." He
> further clarifies this principle in his SODV paper: "Quality is a separate
> category of experience that is neither subject or object."
If Quality is experience, it is proprietary to individual awareness and is
something sensed or observed. That means it is not an abstract "universal
principle". The 'hot stove' illustration which Pirsig re-introduces on the
next page does not prove otherwise. The observer who sits on a hot stove
experiences PAIN; If he judges the experience as a "low quality situation"
it comes later -- most likely while he's applying ointment to his hind
quarters.
Chapter 5 contains other statements that I find simplistic and
philosophically unsound. Read the pararagraph following your quotation, for
example:
"A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and knowable, or there isn't
any metaphysics. Since metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical
definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means
that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradition in terms, a
logical absurdity."
Pirsig's repetition of "essentially" here (presumably to excuse his
imprecision) does not excuse the fact that his assertion is wrong.
Philosophers from Plato to Hegel have postulated metaphysical theories of a
divided universe arising from an "unknowable" holistic source, defining
terms and using analogies as appropriate to express such ontologies. There
have been metaphysics based on Animism, Goodness and Vital Force. I don't
see that a "metaphysics of Quality" is a contradition in terms, or why a
Quality-based ontology is a "logical absurdity". If Pirsig wants to be
credited for a theory of universal Quality, he should be expected to develop
his theory as a metaphysical thesis. Alluding to a heirarchy of Quality
levels in a work of fiction only obfuscates the theory. He may see this as
a way to avoid more precise explication, but would Plato have refused to
define his "essences", or Sartre his "Being"?
My point is simply that Quality defined as "direct experience" is
inconsistent with "the primary empirical reality of the world". Without a
metaphysics of Quality, there is no ontology to support Pirsig's theory.
> First of all, the MOQ is atheistic.
>
> The materialists' faith in the explanatory power of
> "mechanisms" is tantamount to a Christian's faith in God.
Since I take it that you are a Christian, how do you reconcile your belief
in an
atheistic philosophy? (I find this a curious anomaly in both you and Sam.)
> Finally, what in your opinion, would
> be at a higher level than experience?
Platt, I don't think in terms of levels or patterns because they are
relative constructs of the mind. But, as you must have noted, I think
finite experience is a minimalistic and distorted view of reality. Human
intelligence derived from proprietary experience is designed specifically to
accommodate the biological organism to a space/time world. Within that
framework, we apply the tools of science and technology to achieve universal
pragmatic goals.
Man is not programmed by Nature to comprehend ultimate reality, but as human
beings we have the capacity to sense the Value of what is beyond our grasp.
The essential Source of that Value is what imbues us all with the desire to
transcend our physical existence. Religion and philosophy have evolved in
our culture as expressions of this uniquely human need. One is static and
faith-driven; the other is dynamic and intellect-driven. Individual belief
systems are a synthesis that represents some fusion of the two.
Essentially yours,
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 : Wed May 04 2005 - 17:22:55 BST