From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Oct 14 2005 - 11:03:19 BST
Matt,
Thanks for the long response again ... just some initial key points... I'll need to digest the rest ...
(BTW I didn't think I was fighting you hard ... I was just making onepoint to bridge you and DMB - I think I agree with you, and was justpointing out that your disagreement with DMB could be justlinguistic.)
(1) You say (your words) you are disagreeing with me, Pirsig and mostPirsigians. (You are the other side of that "line in the sand". Youare the "fallen priest" after all.)
(2) "Gut feel" and "reflection" were your words - and I explicitlyhighlighted the fact - they wouldn't have been my choice.
(3) Somewhere between "pure sensation" or "immediate" and"post-conceptual" you pick-up on the more subtle "pre-cognitive"(qualia) and "pre-intellectual"from an earlier discussion. Thisillustrates again for me the broad spectrum involved, rather thansimple binary choice between two extremes, with an infinitessimalpoint where the transition occurs. (I'm nothing if not consistent)
In the same way as Pirsig finds it hard to pin down "quality"precisely, he also finds it hard to pin-down the precise point ofdistinction in (3) - he would, it's the same problem. I see this lackof precision as a virtue, rather than a problem. The Qualityinteraction, participation, valuing event, interface, whatever ....has finite thickness, probably made of a whole stack of onion-skins(judging by the number of words we can find to fill that gap).
I repeat, the important thing though is that however thick or thin,there is an important resource in that stack (called Quality) that is"something more than" a formal rationalised objective view. If that'sjust common sense - so be it.
(My original point, that Platt jumped on, was simply that you and DMBwere using the word "judge" in different ways - towards different endsof that spectrum.)
(We need pictures.)
Ian
On 10/13/05, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com> wrote:> Ian,>> I'm having a tough tim> wrote:> Ian,>> I'm having a tough time understanding your comments (like, "About Platt I> wouldn't be surprised - he generally wants to exclude middles and jump for> one or the other; "reflections" exclusively in his case, you say - but I> think that's a bit harsh." Where did I say that Platt reflects> exclusively?), but I think you are trying too hard to fit me into agreement> here. I don't agree and your gloss bowls over the distinctions I made to> enunciate it, without really explaining why you would do so. It wasn't a> "'Yes' then :-)", it was a "Sure, for most Pirsigians, but not for this> one.">> Ian said:> My mind is in turn "boggled" by your suggestion that "There's nothing> philosophically interesting about the difference between one's gut reaction> and one's further reflections." But clearly you don't mean that because you> go on to qualify it with a screed of philosophical points. (And I can point> you at years of correspondence on MoQ-Di
scuss on roughly that subject.)>> Matt:> You should be boggled by that suggestion because it denies the inference> that Pirsig wants us to make between "gut reaction" and "pre-intellectual> experience." Pirsig wants us to feel like its a natural inference, or> really not an inference at all, but I'm trying to suggest that the two> should be distinct. My "screed of philosophical points" were meant to> disengage "gut reaction" from anything like a philosophical thesis about> when language or intellect starts to influence our reactions or what have> you. If all Pirsig was saying was the point of practical wisdom about> balancing gut reactions with reflection, then there would be no problem.> But Pirsig tries to get that piece of common sense wisdom to say something> about philosophical theses that have been hanging around distinctively> philosophical types since Plato. He wants to graft them together, but I> think that grafting is a mistake.>> And if you do look at some of those years of corresponden!
ce, one
thing> you'll come up with is a short dialogue between us in March that looks> almost identical to this one.>> Ian said on March 14th:> IMHO - the use of pure / immefiate / direct in Pirsig / MoQ terms is to> signify "pre-intellectual" experience. The more modern problem I see is that> people may think it's being used to distinguish qualia from pre-cognitive> experience, in which case we are generally not concerned with that here.>> Pre-intellectual, I'm talking raw, as in before reflective / rationalising> interpretation of what is being experienced.>> Pre-cognitive, I'm talking raw, as in quanto-electro-chemical phenomena> before their immediate interpratation as qualities like red, hot, pain,> experiences.>> Matt replied on March 16th:> If I understand you correctly here, what you call "pre-cognitive" would be> something like our brain states (C-fiber stimulation, etc.) as opposed to> our descriptions of them (as red, hot, etc.). If this is what you mean, then> I would agree, qualia as an epistemological
concept is suspect and I think> "immediate" as a differentiation between the two types of description> (roughly, a brain description and a mind description) is equally suspect.> ...>> As for the idea of "pre-intellectual experience," this is the exact concept> I would like to get rid of in Pirsig. Sure, we can make a distinction> between our "immediate" impression of something before we think about it> later more. But that's just going along with common sense, which is what> Dan [ealier that month in the same thread] is trying to convince us is all> that Pirsig meant (with the difference between being at a baseball game and> watching on TV, or watching a baseball game from wherever and thinking about> it later). I don't think it's as apparent as that. I think Pirsig is> trying to draw specifically philosophical consequences out of his idea of> "pre-intellectual experience." It seems to me that Pirsig is trying to say> that our "pre-intellecual experience" of low Quality _happens before> language_!
, and th
is pre-linguistic experience is closer to Quality than> post-linguistic, that language is a mediation between us and reality. As he> says in the famous hot stove example, "the low value comes first, then the> subjective thoughts…." (Ch 8) Value first, thoughts, i.e. language, second.> As far as I can see, there is no way to draw any philosophical consequences> out of the idea of "pre-intellectual experience" that does not tie you into> traditional problems. For pragmatists, there is no way to unhook language> from experience, just as Pirsig agrees to when he says with Bohr that we are> "suspended in language." It seems to me that Pirsig equivocates between a> commonsensical notion of direct experience and a specifically philosophical> sense, and this equivocation is what allows him to gain plausibility for a> specifically philosophical concept.>> Ian replied on March 17th:> Not sure what you mean by "trying to get rid of" - trying to deny that's> what Pirsig meant ? I actually think I agree with Dan. Howe
ver I tink the> subtley is linguistic - the very point we recognise the phenomenon and put a> name to it mentally - we have brought in millenia of cultural conditioning> already, even if we didn't "think" about it. The name of the rose.>> It's all linguistics / evolutionary psychology as you, Bohr and Pirsig sem> to agree.>> Matt:> I never replied back then because I didn't understand your point. And I> still don't. As far as I can see, as soon as you made the distinction> between "pre-cognitive" and "pre-intellectual," you unhooked Pirsig's notion> of pre-intellectual from anything distinctively philosophical and made it> just about common sense notions of gut reactions and further reflections. I> have no problem with that. But if that's the case, then you shouldn't be> fighting me so hard when I suggest we should get rid of _Pirsig's_ notion of> "pre-intellectual experience" because Pirsig's notion still seems to graft> the pre-cognitive with the pre-intellectual together.>> My issue with DMB o!
n his us
e of "pure sensation" is on just this point, that> DMB, following Pirsig and others, wants to get philosophical mileage out of> the distinction between pre- and post-, pure and impure experience. DMB> made the same move towards the common sense context as you and Pirsig did> when he tried to convince me that my views were absurd because they> neglected the fact that when we look at art or listen to music we aren't> talking. But that's not what _I'm_ talking about and its not all _Pirsig or> DMB_ are talking about. If it were, there'd be no fight. You would be> right, it would be a verbal difference. But as far as I can tell, this> ain't.>> You try and turn the distinction to philosophical purposes yourself, as when> you say, "Catch it ["gut-feels"] before you (your subject) start reflecting,> so as to be able to apply something more than culturally pre-conditioned> Aristotelian rationality in the reflecting. Catch it before it is 'reduced'> to subject and object." Only somebody that thought there was a
way of> escaping our rationality, whatever it may be, would say that, but to say> that is like saying we can escape our static patterns, shed our language,> step out of our own skins, take a view from nowhere. Only somebody that> thought that SOM is so prevasive that it even infects our common sense in a> degenerate way would say that. But I don't think anybody who would agree> with Bohr that "we are suspended in language" would say that and I don't> think there's much of a tie at all between the philosophical problems of> Subject-Object Thinking and trying to balance impulsiveness with> over-thinking.>> So, I guess I can sum up the point of this post like this:>> 1) If all Pirsig's distinction between pre- and post-intellectual> experience, and Dynamic and static Quality, amounts to is the common sense> distinction between "gut reactions" and "further reflections," then we can> all rest easy with it.>> 2) Pirsig's distinction is _not_ simply about gut reactions and further> reflections, though i!
t does b
ank on it.>> 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 instru>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html>>
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 : Fri Oct 14 2005 - 11:11:28 BST