----------------------------------------> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:58:26 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MD] "100% confident">>> Ian writes, in part:>> Hi Ham, it wasn't meant to be provocative bait, in any>> negative sense ... the question / the point was serious ...>> it was FORTUNATE that he [Pirsig ignored metaphysics]>> - in my humble opinion naturally. Since the quest for a>> metaphysics is the greater error - he was fortunate that what he>> ended up with doesn't need to be considered a metaphysics>> in order to be useful / valuable.>> DMB adds:>> Apparently there is no shortage of disparaging remarks about>> metaphysics among professionals. Its considered a dead end in>> most places and there are very good philosophical reasons for that.>> In Pirsig's case, he hesitates to construct a metaphysics of Quality>> simply because of what Quality is. Its not an "accident of history".>> ... But the real problem here is not that MOQers love science above>> all or that that somehow fear intuitive concepts, its that the MOQ is>> radically empirical. Like other pragmatists, Pirsig wants to get rid of>> all the extra-experiential, fictional metaphysical entities>> such as your "essence".>> Radical empiricism says that no experience and be ignored in our>> account of reality nor can our accounts assert realities unknown in>> experience such as your "essence". Basically, this view equates>> experience and reality and this renders certain concepts obsolete,>> such as your essence.>> Apart from making it clear that "my essence" is a fictional, experientially> unknown, and (yet) obsolete concept in David's opinion, he asserts above> that "the MOQ is radically empirical." He also says that its author> "hesitates to construct a metaphysics...because of what Quality is," not, as> Ian had suggested, simply "an accident of history." I wonder if this is> true. If it is, I think we've all been deceived.>> I lost Ant's doctoral thesis when my PC broke down early this year, but in a> message to Kevin Perez in February of 2006, Ant wrote: "Pirsig is telling us> that Value is a name that we give for the unknown that> makes it all go. And makes us go (inside of us). It is unknown. We shall> never know it. We must work with, and make sense of what we see, assuming> that something there is an earlier cause that 'makes the world go'. We can> try to project backwards from what we know, to something earlier in an> assumed causal chain. Our discoveries can take us earlier and earlier in an> assumed causal chain. But earlier is ALL we may expect. We can't get back to> the origin of value.">>
Ham said: If, indeed, "there is an earlier cause the makes the world go" which is also "the origin of value", shouldn't that unknown be accounted for in a metaphysical thesis? Especially considering that we can't directly experience it? Especially since, as DMB insists, "the MoQ is radically empirical"? dmb says: There are several key misconceptions at work in your questions here. The "unknown" you refer to is only conceptually or intellectually unknown but it is known in a different way. Its a distinct category of empricial reality, one usually overlooked or dismissed as unimportant by traditional philosophy - even traditional empiricists. This conceptually unknown is what Pirsig calls the pre-intellectual experience and what James calls pure experience. Dewey talks about it in terms of the unique "peculiar quality" of the total situation. It is acconted for in the MOQ and is called dynamic quality. The subsequent discussions about this experience is an experience of a different sort. In the MOQ this woud be called static quality, hopefully and more specifically, static intellectual quality. James also uses the terms static and dynamic but what makes that so interesting, I think, is that Pirsig arrived at these terms indepedently and only later discovered the parallel. Ham said: it is obvious that Pirsig's own pronouncement of his philosophy as "not just atheistic but anti-theistic" has been taken to mean that there is no metaphysical reality, and that whatever is "unknown" cannot be significant because it is inexperiencable. This of course limits the MoQ to experiential knowledge, denying the ineffable, and reducing the Oneness of Eastern mysticism to an amalgam of empirical patterns. dmb says: To the extent that a theistic god is not knowable in experience, yes, the MOQ would exclude that too. But the MOQ's radical empiricism also demands that mystical experience can't be ignored. And the pure experience or pre-intellectual reality is extemely congenial to such claims. In fact, the word "ineffable" refers to an experience that can't be properly conveyed with just a conceptualized or verbalized explanation and this is just what pre-intellectual means. I think its not just a co-incidence that so many descriptions of mystical experience include reference to an undivided whole or as you put it, the Oneness. It is known directly and empirically, but not conceptually. This more or less gives us room for all kinds of "spiritual" experience but it does shut the door on a whole host of metaphysical entities that no one has ever seen or felt or known in any way. I think that's just about perfect and sincerely hope my little set of corrections is enough to alleviate your depression. Of course I'd be sad too if my momma went down on Egyptians. C'mon, admit it. That was funny. Don't finght it. Go ahead and smile. Nobody thinks I actually know anything about your mother. They know its just a stupid joke and you do too. I have partied with your dad, however, and... _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
