From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 15:08:21 GMT
Scott,
> > >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.
Think of it as you will, but a lot does ride on the point because the
fundamental premise of the MOQ is that some things are better than
others, an axiom you have to accept in the process of trying to deny
it. (Any denial carries with the unspoken claim that it is better.)
Without a basic, separate sense of value, betterness would not be
recognized and evaluations of experience wouldn't occur.
> > 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?
By an appeal to the physical sense of value. Given the MOQ's
explanation of evolution vs. the scientific explanation, my sense of
value informs me that DQ gets one off a hot stove prior to any notions
of biological reflexes or other intellectual patterns you wish to
invoke. (To attribute something to biological reflexes is fine if you
don't want to inquire as to how or why those reflexes evolved.)
> 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.
I agree there's not much that can deduced from "everything is value."
But if the claim is that everything is a continuum of value from low to
high, then our physical sense that some things are better than others
verifies the claim.
> 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.
Such paradoxes, like "the present never changes but everything that
changes in the present," simply show the limits of intellectual
patterns (Godel et al) and the necessity to acknowledge that experience
includes DQ, the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source
of all things. I would guess that you have no difficulty relating to
the reality of experience which cannot be spoken of. As Pirsig says,
"The "Absolute' means the same as "Dynamic Quality' and the
'nothingness' of Buddhism." (LC, note 91.)
> > 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.
Can't ask for much more than that! Thanks for making your 'evaluation'
of the MOQ clear.
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 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 15:07:20 GMT