From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 20:29:37 BST
Case,
I mainly don't read other people's conversations these days, but every once
in a while, for whatever reason (usually impulse), I take a quick look to
see what's going on. We had a touch a week ago or something and it looked
like we were basically saying the same thing there. Reading this post (Oct
4th to Bo), I stumbled on more that seems very similar to the kind of thing
I've been going on about (like in "the cul de sac of philosophy and
mysticism"). In particular, I like these lines:
"I am saying the very notion that these levels are discrete from one another
and that they operate independantly from one another is rubbish."
Being as I haven't followed the conversation (and I don't have a lot of time
to get up to speed), I'm not particularly sure how specific you're being
with "these levels," but any general attack on Pirsig's notion of
discreteness I can appreciate.
"Discussions about our internal private worlds are not very productive
because we have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing."
"My knowledge of what goes on in my wife's head is totally dependant on what
she tells me about it. Beyond her reports and her behavior I have have no
way to independently verify the her claims."
I think this is a very important realization about the lack of criteria in
this area of inquiry.
"Most conflate DQ and Quality. This makes no sense to me at all."
The most important reason for this conflation is that Pirsig makes it. I
talk about this conflation and the problems it engenders a little bit in my
review of Anthony's (very old) paper at moq.org.
All that being said, one suggestion I would make is actually of the dropping
of the inner/outer distinction. You have to use it to a certain extent to
enunciate the problems you've identified with justification of "inner
states" and the like (mainly because criticisms such as the ones you're
making are parasitic on the language your opponent is using), but you
mentioned to Bo that you take it as a matter of principle, but I think in
the long run it too will get you into trouble. In the long run, if you take
the behavioristic route you've been traveling, you'll want to collapse the
distinction by saying that, once something has become sufficiently complex,
we are want to ascribe them what we call "inner states," which are defined
as "states that we are not privy to." This is basically one of the "soft
distinctions" we pragmatically make to deal with the world. That makes
saying "I see the inner/outer separation as a matter of principle," as you
did to Bo, a little misleading. And I have a feeling you'd be perfectly
content to drop it in this sense.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 22:17:53 BST