Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 13:21:45 GMT

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?"

    Hi Rick:

    > PLATT (previously)
    > > Maybe Scott and Matt balk at "analogizing" (now there's a word for
    > > you) all truth to sense perception. But Pirsig has no such hesitation:
    > >
    > > "The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is call empiricism. It
    > > claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or
    > > by thinking about what the senses provide." (Lila, chp 8)
    >
    > RICK (momentarily emerging from lurker-mode)
    > Hi Platt. I am curious to know why you think this quote is inconsistent
    > with what Matt and Scott were saying. Pirsig says that all legitimate
    > knowledge arises from the senses OR by thinking about what the senses
    > provide. Matt and Scott are simply pointing out that the correspondence
    > theory of truth works only with knowledge of the former type and not
    > with knowledge of the latter type. How do you see Pirsig's quote as
    > contradicting that?

    Good question. Pirsig's intellectual patterns are grounded in and
    emerge from tangible lower patterns such as hot stoves, iron filings
    and stray dogs. By contrast, Matt and Scott's intellectual patterns
    spin endlessly around other intellectual patterns such as narratives,
    intersubjective agreements, and contradictory identities. Pirsig's
    knowledge is rooted in direct experience; Matt's and Scott's
    "knowledge" floats on a sea of words.

    Another way to draw the contrast is to use S.I. Hayakawa's abstraction
    ladder which begins at the bottom with a cow we perceive: not the word,
    but the object of experience. The next step up the ladder is to
    "Bessie," the name we give to the cow we perceive. Then it's up to
    "cow," then up to "livestock," then "farm assets," then "asset," and
    finally "wealth" at the top of the ladder. If one rarely connects upper
    level abstractions to lower level sense data, concerns like how many
    angels can sit on the head of pin can easily become the focus of
    knowledge as it was in the Middle Ages.

    Or, to put it as simply as possible, for Pirsig there is always a
    territory, for Matt and Scott it's mostly maps about maps about maps..

    Pirsig accepts the positivist's (scientific) view that all knowledge
    must come from data provided by the senses, but adds to the other
    physical senses a sense of value that tells us that "some things are
    better than others." From that basic premise, he builds the MOQ.

    Hope this helps.

    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 : Mon Nov 17 2003 - 13:19:54 GMT