From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 07:46:56 BST
Matt (Reinier mentioned) --
> Ham, I'm not sure who Reinier is, but I think you were refering to Bo in
> your last post.
Indeed I was, and my corrected post is now on line. But you should get to
know Reiner, whose MD signature is platootje@netscape.net . Like me
Reinier's primary interest is in metaphysics, and he's come up with some
intriguing ideas.
I alerted Bo to expect a "philosophological" response to the conscious rock
question. And here it is:
> The thing that always strikes me about these
> conversations about imaginative redescription is
> how some people are so willing to throw some
> descriptions into total disarray (like "value" and
> "experience"), but not others. To me, the problem
> isn't some fact of definition about consciousness
> or value or experience or reality or quality.
> The problem is what one is willing to say on behalf
> of a redescription.
> For instance, Bo, you're willing to say that
> "experience=reality" is a tautology, when to others
> it isn't, but you balk at rocks having consciousness
> because "consciousness means self-consciousness,"
> referencing I suppose to some fact about the
> definition of consciousness. Saying "X means Y"
> simply means that you usually infer Y from X.
> But these usual routes of inference are sometimes
> what are up for grabs in the act of creative redescription.
So now we have a new term to contend with -- "redescription". Would you
define that as euphemism or allegory? Do you realize you used that term, or
a variant of it, ten times in your exposition? This is what the
philosophologist does only too well. Since he believes philosophy is all a
matter of language anyway, he resolves a paradox by throwing in yet another
word. This is precisely what I meant when I said on 9/25, "we don't need
anything grandiose, just more fundamental and precise." We'll never resolve
fundamental issues by resorting to linguistic tricks.
Redescription or not, I don't think Pirsig intended that
Experience=Quality=Reality be taken as anything but a maxim to represent his
core MoQ thesis. If I'm correct, he has made all three terms equivalent by
this formula, and in so doing has also made them all indistiguishable.
Moreover, if consciousness is the equivalent of experience, then the formula
may be extended to Consciousness=Experience=Quality= Reality. But it
doesn't need such an extension, because Reality itself encompasses
everything. Therefore, the infamous MoQ maxim is reducible to
Everything=Everything. And that, my intellectual friend, is a tautology you
can't deny.
To come up now as an apologist for the author with the excuse that his
philosophical principle was something less than a metaphysical truth, that
it was only an "imaginative redescription", is the linguistic equivalent of
Clinton's remark: "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." That may be
a philosophologist's solution; it certainly won't be viewed as a
metaphysical solution, or even a common sense answer.
Nor is this simply a matter of "dictionary thumping". Assertions having to
do with philosophical concepts cannot be so cavalier if they are to be taken
seriously. The same logical integrity applies to one's concept of
consciousness. Yes, it challenges definition; but, like any other concept
with which we are experienced, it is capable of being expressed in terms of
its function and effects. Even metaphysical concepts beyond our experience
can be posited in communicable terms and logical expressions.
Part of the problem that I see emerging in my limited dialogue with you --
and I feel some counter-criticism is in order since you've derided my
understanding and ability to ask "appropriate questions" -- is your
nihilistic outlook. Why else would you not want to enter into discussions
of the fundamental issues of philosophy, instead shoving them into the
cubbyholes of past history?
Take Consciousness, for example. Here is how you deal with a subject far
more immanent and vital to most of us than experience:
> Something has to remain paradigmatically human or else
> there'd be no difference between us and rocks. ...
> Physical phenomena--rocks falling to the ground,
> lightning striking the ground (or, really, the sky I guess),
> hurricanes swirling in the ocean--are the effects of
> physical "objects," or centers of evaluative gravity
> (if you will), being conscious of their surroundings
> and taking the according appropriate action.
> We trace these appropriate actions as "The Laws of
> Nature." So, what is human consciousness?
> Predictably for me, the use of language.
What you've so eloquently described (or is it a "redescription"?) is not
"awareness" at all. Clearly consciousness to you is nothing more than a
behavior pattern, which of course applies equally as well to rocks as to
humans. Except that the behavior observed in "human consciousness" is "the
use of language". I've found that the refusal to acknowledge cognitive
perception, referring to it only in objective terms of actions and behavior,
is characteristic of one who denies the proprietary nature of value in the
life experience -- in a word, a nihilist. And that saddens me.
Thanks for hanging it all out on the line, Matt.
Regards,
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 : Thu Sep 29 2005 - 07:55:59 BST