From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jul 13 2005 - 09:14:44 BST
First instalment:
Hi Matt
8 July you wrote:
> You can't just say, "I have the Truth!
> I have the Truth!" over and over again and expect intelligent people
> to believe you.
Imagine the scene when the dripping wet Archimedes runs
through the streets of Syracuse shouting "Heureka" and a
contemporary Mattopolis: ..."you can't just shout heureka over
and over again, you have to do the work needed ...etc" ;-)
> Matt:
> I'm beginning to think you didn't even read my interpretation. You're
> basically conceding the field to me, Bo. First, what _you_ mean by
> SOM is not clear. You make a list (just a slew of dualisms), but if
> the list is longer than one item (which it is), you've got a lot more
> work to do in linking all of those items indelibly together. Further,
> what is meant by SOM in ZMM is not clear (as I argued).
If you deny THESE things where are we to begin?
> A) Pirsig
> doesn't use the term, so drawing conclusions will be a little more between
> difficult than supposed.
I don't have ZMM with me here, but there is one sentence ending
....until this time there had not been any subjects or objects, mind
or matter ...etc.
B) If we are to believe that anything stands
> at the heart of SOM based on ZMM, it is not any of the dualisms you
> listed, but the dichotomy between appearance and reality. That's my
> argument, and I wrote out what I think is a fairly persuasive sketch
> of that interpretation. As it is, you (or anyone else if they are so
> inclined) haven't stepped up to rebut that interpretation. And you've
> basically said that you won't. Because it is "clear." Well, Bo, how
> is it clear? To establish how clear it is, you might want to wield
> some arguments and interpreations rather than just repeating, over and
> over again, "It's clear! It's clear!"
No need to create differences where there none are.
"Appearance/reality" is another S/O facet, most like Aristotles'
"form/substance", I can't imagine myself ever rebutting that.
> Matt: I'm gonna' play a little game. Let's see how much Bo really
> agrees with Pirsig. During the S/O Dilemma, Pirsig describes three
> dialectical maneuvers: choose option 1, choose option 2, or reject the
> options. (Technically, the third maneuver isn't a _dialectical_
> choice, but that's besides the point right now.) So, is Quality in the
> Subject? Nah. Is it in the Object? Nah. Pirsig rejects the dualism.
> (Which is why people view your interpretation, Bo, as retrogressive,
> not progressive.)
My interpretation? Isn't this what what ZMM says was Phaedrus'
insight and the beginning of the Quality Metaphysics?
> See how that works? And you seem to
>n think Pirsig's right here. So, why don't I get that maneuver? You
> never even address the implications of the maneuver. Its as if you
> aren't even seeing it.
I have always seen the implications of this point, but it is
important to note that Phaedrus was a SOMist at that time and
accepted its premises as given, thus his mission was not to
disprove SOM (he knew no such thing) but to answer where
quality belonged. He addressed the objective option first and
through various examples - much based on the empiricists -
rejected that. Then he turned to the subjective option. I admit that
his argumentation I was not as forcefully here, but at least he
found it unsound, and then - through the "getting hotter" game -
arrived at the insight that quality was the source of both objects
and subjects, and - later - that it was the human intellect that split
quality that way.
The implications was the first tentative MOQ in which the
subject/object or mind/matter dualisms are intellect. How difficult
can you possibly make these things.
> All you do is beg the question in your favor
> without really explaining why. How is it you beg the question, you
> ask? Because you're slipping in your definition of the MoQ at the
> moment of critique. Everytime we explain our definition (as opposed
> to yours) you freak, "The MoQ is an intellectual pattern? Oh God,
> that means everything is an intellectual pattern!" But that's a
> sleight-of-hand trick. We define the MoQ as "intellectual patterns."
... and by default all utterings about reality are "intellectual
patterns", heck, all utterings are because you see language itself
as intellect? Isn't that so? And by now you possibly see the
fallacy of the "manipulation of symbols" definition?
> You define the MoQ as "Reality." The only way we could be construed
> as saying that everything is intellectual patterns is if we used
> _your_ definition of the MoQ at the moment of inference--as Reality.
> But if we did that, we'd be using _your_ definition, not ours. We'd
> no longer be talking about anything that could be associated with us.
> The reason it appears to you that I think that there is nothing but
> intellect is because you think the MoQ is reality itself.
> But you
> never untied what that means in the face of my questions from a while
> ago. You just suddenly announced that I understood what was going on.
> I kept saying I'm not so sure I do, and it certainly appears that I
> don't understand the consequences which would be why I find your
> philosophical behavior bewildering. I tried untying what you mean in
> the post entitled "Matt's Critique of the SOL--conclusion?" from June
> 22. At that point, you had already started to disengage, saying
> "You've understood me!," so I tried to tie the conversation up with
> the way I understand you. You never said anything, but apparently I'm
> wrong. So what the hell do you mean when you say that the MoQ is
> reality?
Matt you have revealed that you know what I mean, so why keep
asking?
> The difficulty of this whole bizarre conversation is that early on you
> retitled the thread "Matt's Critque of the SOL." But very quickly you
> stopped addressing any of my criticisms and just started parroting
> "You understand! You understand!" Suddenly, my critique is part of
> my "meat grinding factory." Thing is, as far as I can tell, and you
> haven't said a peep to persuade me otherwise (let alone persuade
> anyone else), my factory is beating the hell out of your philosophy.
In spite of some juvenile language you show signs of intellectual
honesty and that's good.
end of part 1.
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 Jul 13 2005 - 09:18:40 BST