Hi Bo [Ron mentioned] --
After I said that Aristotle is not to be faulted for launching the objective
approach to knowledge (which some regard as "intellectual"), you fault me
for doing the same thing ...
Right, here is the crux where you are well-meaning but wrong.
Science is the essence of the intellectual level, that of a human
mind exploring a physical universe. Philosophy on the other
hand believes itself to be above science, but is firmly based
on the same S/O-intellectual outlook. This includes your own
Essence, and Pirsig's Quality as essence with the MOQ a
theoretical ordering. The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide,
this is the metaphysical equivalent to Newton's physical
revolution.
"Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a definition of
Science. If you mean that experiential knowledge is the goal of Science, I
would agree. Scientific methodology is the logical approach to
understanding physical reality. But physical reality is not the primary
essence, and as I've said previously, objective knowledge is not wisdom
(true insight), and Science is not Philosophy.
This is what the Newton example in ZAMM says:
A great new insight/revelation comes along and in a
crystallizing process it transforms the future, present
and PAST in its picture. That you (Ham) don't get this
message, but go on thinking that intellect is the ordering
mind is forgivable, but that the moqists around this site
ignore it is a tragedy.
How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from?
The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of DQ.
I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a
relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and
cogency as "insight". Neither the value that is sensed nor the awareness
that senses it is an "existent". All insight is proprietary to the
individual observer. And that includes the appearance of physical phenomena
(i.e., experiential reality).
Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question:
Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical equivalent to
Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of its realization by
the cognizant mind? In other words, can a universe exist without sensible
awareness? That, I think, is the fundamental issue in this discussion.
What Ron "understands" I don't know, but lets keep it fundamental.
Alas, I don't know what Ron really "believes", either. However, it would be
wrong to dismiss his respect for fundamental principles and their logical
presentation, which is the bread and butter of philosophical dialectic.
Thanks, Bo.
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/
