From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 07:15:38 BST
Dear Platt,
I had the hope that we agreed on the need for both absolutes and relativity
in the MoQ, but my hope was diminished again by your requirement 22 Apr 2003
07:54:04 -0400 that I agree with [the MoQ being] 'absolute in its inner
integrity' and your explanation 23 Apr 2003 08:07:12 -0400 that this would
imply agreeing that Pirsig's statements in 'Lila' are logically consistent
with each other and with the overall framework of the MoQ.
For me Pirsig is only a fallible human. (In 'Lila's Child' he also admits
that he would have wanted to have written some things in 'Lila' different in
hindsight.)
Logical consistency of texts depends at least partly on the context in which
the reader reads it. (Pirsig doesn't define everything, so readers have to
depend on their own definitions and experiences to give some of it meaning.
These will be different from Pirsig's at some points and sometimes make the
text inconsistent.)
Last but not least the MoQ for me (as you know by now) is not to be found in
Pirsig's words only. It is an intellectual pattern of value that to an
increasing extent is to be found in texts of others, predominantly on this
list (and hardly outside) I fear.
I leave it to you to tell what you mean with the MoQ being an "absolute
metaphysics" (if you feel the need). You introduced the statement 21 Apr
2003 10:28:55 -0400:
'Perhaps we can agree that Pirsig presents an absolute metaphysics wherein
relativity is allowed free reign.'
This statement seemed plausible enough for me even without explanation. I
just had a hunch that the need for both absolutes and relativity could also
be expressed in another way (a relative metaphysics which values absolute
statements). It must have to do something with Goedel's theorem, which
Jonathan reminded us of 15 Apr 2003 09:24:16 +0300. In my understanding:
whatever you understand as absolute in a symbolic representation of
something else, you will always have to leave something out that becomes
more relative because of the stress you lay on absolute truth of your
representation. The very difference of representation and represented
precludes absolute consistency between the two.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Apr 24 2003 - 07:17:23 BST