From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 05 2005 - 15:50:03 GMT
Ham --
[Platt]
> > Because, as Pirsig explains, "There are many sets of intellectual reality
> > in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others."
[Ham]
> What does that mean? What is an "intellectual reality set" and where can
> we find it?
An "intellectual reality set" is a belief system. If you're a liberal,
your belief system tells you Bush is a fascist. You find the sets in the
minds of people. Pirsig likens the sets to eyeglasses. "The culture in
which we live hands us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret
experience with, and the concept of the primacy of subjects and objects is
built right into these glasses. If someone sees things through a somewhat
different set of glasses or, God help him, takes his glasses off, the
natural tendency of those who still have their glasses on is to regard his
statements as somewhat weird, if not actually crazy." (Lila, 8) Could
Pirsig perhaps have been thinking of you, Ham? :-)
> Davies is correct (as usual); absolute truth is not accessible to man.
> I have made this point in my own thesis. But if a philosopher doesn't have
> enough confidence (faith?) in his thesis to call it a truth, why should we?
> No metaphysical hypothesis can be proved empirically, but an idea can be
> true conceptually even if it can't be absolutely proven. If I didn't think
> my hypothesis was true, I wouldn't have put it on line.
Agree. Truth is a value that transcends any particular concepts in may
embody. However, I agree with Davies that we have to go beyond
intellectual concepts for "true" understanding. That's why I pursue beauty
through art.
> Apparently, Pirsig did not want to antagonize Boaz (a fellow
> anthopologist?) but felt he could handle the mystical group (though
> Plotinus is probably the only "honored" mystic-philosopher he cited.)
> Catch the politics here, Platt?
Nope. I missed it. I hesitate to assign ulterior motives to anyone. My
mind can't get into other's heads.
> > I'm surprised you think philosophy's purpose is to
> > inform us what is better for all time. Seems to me that's
> > an answer only known to God.
>
> I think philosophy's purpose is to explain the meaning of existence, and
> particularly man's purpose in it. Certainly there are many to choose from;
> but if the philosopher makes it clear that man is autonomous in his
> freedom, the choice will reflect his personal values. That really is what
> life is all about. Can I 'prove' it? No, but it's a workable concept
> that makes a lot of sense. Why is it that your friend Pirsig never
> attempted to point that out? Why did he feel it necessary to avoid the
> individuality of the self and its role in the universe?
He didn't. He wrote an entire book about a single individual, Lila. It was
her individuality of self and her role in the universe that triggered his
metaphysics to answer the question, "Does LIla have quality?".
> > Indeed I do take an absolutist moral position against rape,
> > kidnapping, lynching, slavery and murder as commonly
> > defined. If you believe the same, the question I would
> > pose to you is: "On what basis did you establish that
> > belief?"
>
> Because I believe than the individual is the "free agent" of his
> existential reality, the sanctity of man and his freedom are the primary
> values. All of the violent acts you've suggested deprive man of his
> freedom, hence are contrary to his essential nature.
Now there's an "intellectual reality set" I agree with. And so does
Pirsig. The highest value in his metaphysics of values is freedom.
> > Pirsig never claimed otherwise. He also claimed that morality is
> > empirically valid. Do you agree? (I don't see how you disagree without
> > making a moral judgment that instantly disproves your disagreement.)
>
> I don't think Pirsig's novel comes anywhere near being a treatise on
> morality.
What do you think it's about?
> Morality an empirical truth? In relational terms, maybe. But,
> you already know that I side with the moral relativists.
You do? What's relative about your freedom statement above?. Do you not
experience that some experiences are better than others?
> > What you assert is simply that there is no experience without an
> > experiencer -- an assertion unfortunately you cannot prove without
> > assuming the assertion. However, I admire your faith.
>
> I don't need to prove it. It's self-evident!
Well, that's always the appeal of last resort when the limits of logic are
acknowledged.
> Ideas are fun -- even if they can't be proved. Thanks for the discussion.
You bet. Thanks also.
Platt
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 : Sat Nov 05 2005 - 17:17:15 GMT