Hi Platt [Arlo, Krimel mentioned] --
> The underlying assumption in your egg carton example
> is that experience can be divided into wholes and parts.
> Not a bad assumption as assumptions go, but an
> assumption nevertheless.
Actually it's a mathematical law supported by definitions: 12 divided by two
equals 6, and a dozen means 12. Yes, if it is understood that all truth is
relative, and absolute truth is not accessible to humans, then everything we
know can be considered an assumption. But who among us can fully
participate in the life-experience believing that it's just an assumption?
The point that I've been trying to make with Arlo and Krimel is that nothing
has more truth for the individual than Descartes' 'I think'. Self-awareness
is the primary locus of all subsequent experience from which knowledge
comes. Therefore, what we have come to learn and understand about the
external world (empirical knowledge) can be no more valid than the Self
which apprehends it.
This is not to criticize or demean empirical science, for objective
knowledge is the universal means by which man manipulates and controls his
physical reality. While the limits of this knowledge are finite,
relational, and non-subjective, so is our comprehension of reality. The
problem for philosophers who exclude subjectivity from existence is that
they deny themselves a broader view of reality, along with the teleological
understanding that such a concept makes possible.
> I assume you recognize some of the assumptions of your
> own philosophy, such as "we can know only what we can
> experience." (I assume you consider your philosophy a
> form of knowledge.)
Essentialism is a concept of reality, much as the MoQ is a concept of
existence. An ontological hypothesis affords a reality perspective that
can't be confirmed like scientific principles and mathematical laws. An
unproven hypothesis can never be equated with knowledge because it isn't
"factual". On the other hand, a well-developed ontology can satisfy man's
quest for meaning in a way that objective knowledge never can.
[Arlo]:
> When you change your assumptions, if you feel the new
> form of knowledge has Quality, you accept both it and the
> assumptions underlying it.
I don't understand the logic of this assertion, which seems to contradict
Arlo's own argument. What does "feeling a form of knowledge has Quality"
mean to Arlo?
If "feeling" is the criterion for what has quality, why do Arlo, Krimel, and
Pirsig deplore the spiritual feelings of theists and mystics? If the
cognizant individual is only a myth or "abstraction of levels", as they
claim, how can one's feelings have any validity?
If I am convinced that Essence is the primary reality, is my conviction not
a feeling? In MoQ terms, Essentialism is a "form of knowledge that has
Quality" for me. By what justification, then, am I to be chastised for what
I believe? Is Pirsig less culpable for positing Quality as reality because
"it doesn't need to be defined"?
[Platt]:
> I can understand if you just went by what Arlo says
> that you would get the idea that Pirsig is just another
> New Age Marxist since Arlo always extols the wonders
> of society, community, culture, co-operation, sacrifice and
> every other form of collectivism. But, let not your heart be
> troubled. Pirsig is an individualist from the get go, as
> witness his two books centered around the lives of very
> unique individuals, including himself.
What is "unique" about the lives of Phaedrus, Lila, and Rigel? While
Phaedrus may reflect some of the author's experiences, I have no reason to
believe that they are anything but fictional characters in a novel. I
appreciate your ZMM quotation, Platt, but I think you can find other
sentiments expressed that lean heavily toward socialism. And Arlo is right
about Pirsig's politics. Have you seen this 2006 Pirsig interview with Tim
Adams for the The Observer?
TA: It's a strange time to be American. Everything seems to be so
polarised.
RP: It's a version of the old capital-versus-labour dispute, I guess.
The Democrats, Al Gore, would have won without Lewinsky I think. I had a
lot of time for Clinton but I still fault him for a lot of the stuff that
has followed.
TA: Have your politics changed over the years?
RP: I have been a lifelong Democrat. I was born in the state of
Hubert Humphrey who was, I believe, one of the most intelligent people
ever to get into politics. My girlfriend lived across the street from him
and I would see him from time to time. Speak to him. Like all ideas, though,
the Democrat ideas need to be Dynamic. It's like Lila, it needs to be kept
current.
http://robertpirsig.org/Observer%20Interview.htm
I don't berate people for their political views, Platt. But can there be
any doubt in your mind that the predominant morality of this forum is
Statist Socialism?
Essentially yours,
Ham
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/
