On Tuesday 27 May 2008 10:17 PM Marsha writes to Krimel:
>> Krim: It allows an purely naturalistic universe in which things
>> evolve slowly from the bottom up.
>>
>> DM: Does anyone here disagree?
>>
>> [Krimel]
>> I suspect some do but do they? Anyone? Anyone?
>
> [Marsha]
> I do not like the top-down or bottom-up model. I like the Net Of > Jewels
Model: The universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in > which each is
only the reflection of all the others in a fantastic > interrelated harmony
without end.
>
> [Krimel]
> Could just be me but this makes not a bit of sense. I can't for the > life
of me see the middle way between top down and bottom up leading
> anywhere.
Greetings Krimel,
[Marsha]
I haven't taken the net of jewels model to represent the middle way. It's
how I see it, 'interconnected reflections', or interconnected, overlapping
patterns. I have never been terribly comfortable with a hierarchical
structure because it forbids the possibility of overlapping categories.
Though, it is favored in the sciences, isn't it? And very patriarchal.
Besides, where is it you want to be lead? Who's on top? How utterly
boring?
Marsha
On Wednesday 28 May 2008 6:42 PM Matt writes to Ron:
<snip>
[Matt to Ron:]
If I'm reading you correctly, then we already agree on a lot. It sounds to
me that in the above you are making a distinction between "certainty" (which
we have of experiences) and "verifiable certainty" (which is something we
need for knowledge/truth). I understand the latter by way of your further
statement later, "To me, there seems to be a discrepancy from certainty and
whether or/Not it is true or false."
I take the above to be in full accordance with my, "And it is agreed by most
philosophers (and all laypeople) that knowledge and process of finding truth
begins with our experience of the world. But what is the utility in placing
truth in the moment of presentness if it might be false when it becomes the
past in the next moment?" The first statement is the agreement on "we all
start from the first-person stance." I would take your answer to the
question to be, "None, there is no utility in placing truth there."
Hi Matt, Marsha, and all,
[Matt]
"And it is agreed by most philosophers (and all laypeople) that knowledge
and process of finding truth begins with our experience of the world.
[Joe]
I like Marsha¹s point of view: there are different ways of viewing the
world! Nicoll talks about a distinction between ³impressions² and
³associations². The distinction he is drawing is echoed in Persig¹s
statement: ³Culture hands us a set of glasses.² When I was young my first
impressions became organized into associations of behavior in society!
Later in life impressions fall on these associations, instead of consciousy
and my outlook becomes mechanical from a very young age.
[Matt]
But what is the utility in placing truth in the moment of presentness if it
might be false when it becomes the past in the next moment?"
[Joe]
If I don¹t allow my consciousness of the ³present², but only my associations
of the past, I will have no hint that my behavior depends on mechanical
associations learned at my mom¹s knee. I am acting like a child, with no
hint that I am acting mechanically, not consciously from developed
faculties. It has always worked before. If I make no mistakes in going
beyond my youthful associations, I live my life in mechanical sleep. I
live, but am I alive?
[Joe]
IMO Matt and Marsha arrive at the same page, life, from different
perspectives: variety is a difficulty of life, or variety is the spice of
life. How many varieties does life come in? Is the inorganic a ³present
variety² of life? Why isn¹t evolution discovered in a ³process of finding
truth in our experience of the world?²
Joe
On 5/28/08 6:42 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Matt said:
> You said that "objectivism defines 'certainty' intellectually, whereas Pirsig
> places 'certainty' pre-intellectually." I'd like to first point out that the
> phrase I asked for expansion on was about "truth-finding" and in doing so, you
> moved to talk about "certainty." This isn't inherently bad, all one needs to
> do is connect the two. However, I think very traditional, philosophical
> problems will arise when you do, problems we Pirsigians know of as "SOM."
>
> Ron said:
> What you state, the reservations of how objectivism relocates it's foundation
> On which it bases it's certainty,
> Renovating the structure of truth finding to have it
> Originate in the first person is not as unreasonable as one might think.
> You bring up hallucinations. The first person experience
> Is "true" it may not be verifiable but the experience
> Is real. That part is certain. Whether or not it's
> Verifiably certain seems to me another matter. One
> Which may involve objectivism to establish. The pitfall
> To avoid intellectually is one of objectifying experiences
> To define truth or certainty itself.
>
> Matt:
> If I'm reading you correctly, then we already agree on a lot. It sounds to me
> that in the above you are making a distinction between "certainty" (which we
> have of experiences) and "verifiable certainty" (which is something we need
> for knowledge/truth). I understand the latter by way of your further
> statement later, "To me, there seems to be a discrepancy from certainty and
> whether or/Not it is true or false."
>
> I take the above to be in full accordance with my, "And it is agreed by most
> philosophers (and all laypeople) that knowledge and process of finding truth
> begins with our experience of the world. But what is the utility in placing
> truth in the moment of presentness if it might be false when it becomes the
> past in the next moment?" The first statement is the agreement on "we all
> start from the first-person stance." I would take your answer to the question
> to be, "None, there is no utility in placing truth there."
>
> If all that is agreed to, then I have three comments/suggestions:
>
> 1) I had originally commented on "truth-finding" when you moved to talk about
> certainty and objectivism. I think in developing a sustained interpretation,
> how all these things relate should become clearer. For instance, the notion
> of "verifiable" and it's use in knowledge/truth, but not the certainty of
> having an experience. I agree with the general outlines, and in developing
> your view, it would interesting to see how you relate the "certainty" (all
> alone, as it is) of the first-person point of view to the "verifiable
> certainty" (with a new friend) of truth/knowledge.
>
> 2) You suggest "verifiable certainty" may involve "objectivism to establish."
> I would develop what you mean by "objectivism," especially how it relates to
> "SOM." The way I would use the terms must certainly be different because I
> don't think "SOM" refers to anything other than optional philosophical views.
> I understand that Bo doesn't, and that your view owes something to his view,
> so I would develop and make very clear what things you think are necessary to
> reality (first instance, in my terms, the first-person point of view) and
> those things that are optional (for instance, in your terms, intellectually
> defining certainty).
>
> 3) I think your bridge to grammar and language is good, and I would expand on
> it. However, I would add the caveat that, if you try too hard to stick to
> parameters laid out by Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, you might stymie your
> own search. Follow your nose, draw your own map, and let your work shine a
> light on Pirsig and see how Pirsig's work shines a light on yours.
>
> Matt
> _________________________________________________________________
> Change the world with e-mail. Join the i¹m Initiative from Microsoft.
> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ChangeWorld
> 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/
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/
