From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 20:25:23 GMT
Scott:Anyway, the L of CI can be used when the methodology you describe
fails. It
fails when the topic for which one seeks an explanation cannot escape
contradiction. An example is our awareness of things changing. To be aware
of a thing changing we must remain the same before and after the change (we
are continuous). But in becoming aware of a thing we are changing. To be
continuous we must not be continuous. To be aware of ourselves changing, we
must not be changing.
DM: So would I be right to say that we need to somehow understand how a
unity
or a One becomes a two or a many, and this has to be some sort of process of
self-alienation, only then can there be DQ at one pole and SQ at another,
and also
this is how we get to subject-object and therefore these poles are at a
different level
one?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: MD matt said scott said
> Platt,
>
> > > Does he ever actually call it a sense? All I recall is that he says it
> > > is "verifiable", a source of knowledge.
> >
> > >From Pirsig's SODV paper:
> >
> > "In the third box are the biological patterns: senses of touch, sight
> > hearing, smell and taste. The Metaphysics of Quality follows the
> > empirical tradition here in saying that the senses are the starting
> > point of reality, but -- all importantly -- it includes a sense of
> > value. Values are phenomena. To ignore them is to misread the world."
>
> Ok. I agree with Matt and Steve, though, that it is better to think of it
as
> accompanying the information of the physical senses (and mental processes)
> rather than being a "sixth" sense, though I don't think much rides on this
> point.
>
> >
> > > In any case, one cannot
> > > demonstrate truth of value judgments by correspondence. That is, if I
> > > say X is better than Y, and you say Y is better than X, then there is
> > > nothing further that either of us can physically point to to determine
> > > who is right (we may be able to make non-sense-perceptible
> > > justifications, but those are not done through correspondence).
> >
> > Agree. I see our sense of value as a catalyst for coming up with
> > premises which is a response to DQ ("Hey, I think I have a great
> > idea."), to be verified by the scientific demands of logical
> > consistency and correspondence to observation, i.e., experience.
>
> Yes, except when science isn't the appropriate tool.
>
> >
> > Scott in a previous post:
> > If you're going to insist that "being rational" is all and only
> > Aristotelian logic, then there isn't much more to say. One cannot come
> > up
> > with the idea that Quality is prior to subject and object through
> > Aristotelian logic. That act is one of creating a hypothesis, while
> > Aristotelian logic only determines what one can deduce from a set of
> > assumptions. Therefore, according to you, Pirsig is irrational.
> >
> > Platt
> > Agree that logic cannot create a hypothesis. But once you come up with
> > a hypothesis, an assumption or a premise (I suggest from a response to
> > DQ), then Aristotelian logic applies to make deductions which can then
> > be verified by the physical senses. This is how high quality
> > intellectual patterns are created other than those created by pure
> > mathematics. I don't how the "logic of contradictory identity" is of
> > any help in this process.
>
> It does not help in this process, but what you describe is pretty much
> limited to scientific hypotheses. It doesn't work with metaphysical
> hypotheses, because they cannot be verified by the physical senses. As in
my
> favorite example: I disagree with Pirsig that it is DQ that gets one off
the
> hot stove. I say it is SQ, a biological reflex. How are we to decide
between
> these two via an appeal to the physical senses? A more important matter is
> the claim that everything is value. I don't dispute it, but can conceive
of
> no logical deduction from that that can be verified by the physical
senses.
>
> Anyway, the L of CI can be used when the methodology you describe fails.
It
> fails when the topic for which one seeks an explanation cannot escape
> contradiction. An example is our awareness of things changing. To be aware
> of a thing changing we must remain the same before and after the change
(we
> are continuous). But in becoming aware of a thing we are changing. To be
> continuous we must not be continuous. To be aware of ourselves changing,
we
> must not be changing. If you try to get around this by saying something
> like: part of us is changing but part is not, then the question has still
> not been answered (and one is perilously close to reverting to dualism).
The
> part that is not changing can just be removed from the explanation, since
it
> plays no role in the act of awareness (since to play the role it must be
> what changes in us to observe the change), and then one has the same
problem
> with what is left.
>
> >
> > Pirsig with a leap of imagination in response to DQ came up with
> > hypothesis that Quality is reality. Then he set about creating a
> > metaphysics using Aristotelian logic and correspondence to experience
> > in order to verify the intellectual quality of his hypothesis.
> >
> > My sense of value tells me the intellectual quality of the MOQ is very
> > high indeed. Your sense of value says otherwise.
>
> I'd say it is high but not very high. For the record, I would be overjoyed
> to learn that ZAMM and Lila had become part of the educational curriculum.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Nov 20 2003 - 20:29:54 GMT