Hi Ham, [Platt] > > Mr. Pirsig put this all into perspective in the following quote > > from Lila: > > > > "...Should reality be something that only a handful of the world's > > most advanced physicists understand? ...Should reality be > > expressible only in symbols that require university-level mathematics to > > manipulate? Should it be something that changes from year to year as new > > scientific theories are formulated? Should it be something about which > > different schools of physics can quarrel for years with no firm resolution > > on either side? If this is so then how is it fair to imprison a person in > > a mental hospital for life with no trial and no jury and no parole for > > 'failing to understand reality'? "
[Ham} > While I can empathize with Pirsig's protest, especially knowing some of his > personal history, I believe there is another side to his argument. [Platt] While you describe Pirsig's protest as his "quandary" (below) I think he's merely suggesting that science's explanation of reality leaves much to be desired, not the least of which would be the desire for plain English. Of course, the same can be said of a lot of philosophers and humanities academics in general, especially those of a post-modernist bent. :-) I agree with you that "reality will always be The Unknown to man." At least there will always be part of it that can't be put into words. Pirsig thinks so, too. His Dynamic Quality cannot be defined. I think it's telling that Pirsig associates Dynamic Quality with religious mysticism. If The Unknown is in any way accessible to us that's where it's at. But, I contend it's also in Beauty, or as Northrop put it, in the "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum." Merry Christmas, Platt [Ham] > Man is not designed to fathom the truth of his existence. His finite > intellect is inadequate to deal with the absolute. Nor is it necessary that > he do so, since most people can live out their lives blissfully unaware that > there may be a reason for their existence. Yet, because there is implanted > in every cognizant individual the quest for understanding, we all arrive at > some notion of what reality is about. Metaphysics is for those seriously > concerned with the existential enigma. For the less intellectual among us, > simple platitudes are sufficient guidelines for a contented life; others > bind themselves to the canonic law or the theories of science, while some > refuse to believe anything that isn't substantiated by empirical proof. > > I'm inclined to agree with Eckhart's observation that "within itself the > soul is free, innocent of all instrumentalities and ideas." If man did not > enter the world an innocent creature - if his knowledge were unlimited - he > would not be free to shape his reality or realize its values. Consider the > alternative. If you were suddenly granted the key to all knowledge, > including the origin, meaning and destiny of your life, would it be a gift > or a curse? Would you be content with the prospect of never having to make > a choice, feel surprise, or ponder an unknown fate? Or would absolute > wisdom reduce your life-experience to that of a robot running its prescribed > course under the control of an external source or cause-and-effect > probability? I've stated in my thesis that "the inscrutability of life's > meaning confirms the teleology of our experienced world." > > If, as I believe, the purpose of cognizant life is to "make value aware", it > is only logical that the individual subject should be an autonomous agent > "outside the loop", as it were, equipped to experience reality in accordance > with his own value sensibilities, guided by his unique perspective, free of > the restrictions that knowledge "beyond the experience" would impose on his > attitudes and behavior. > > So, with due respect to Mr. Pirsig in his quandary, I contend that only by > confronting the problems of metaphysics head-on can we rise above the > paradox of differentiated existence and come to an intellectual > understanding of our role in the cosmos. While some will call this > "theological nonsense" or "supernaturalism", my contention is that ultimate > reality will always be The Unknown to man. You can skirt around it, > convince yourself that it's a fantasy, or try to explain it. One thing is > certain: whether you are concerned with ultimate reality or not, reality is > ultimately concerned with you. 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/
