Hi Ham, > [Ham, previously]: > > Thus, for example: > > 1) students carry backpacks > > 2) my wife carries a backpack > > 3) :. my wife is a student. > > > > Or -- following Pirsig's construction: > > 1) birds can fly > > 2) birds are composed of cells > > 4) :.cells can fly. > > [Platt] > > In the first example, the premise is questionable. > > In the second example, if you add the word "exclusively" > > as Pirsig does in his syllogism, then the conclusion would > > be logically correct Right? (See Craig's explanation.) > > In logical syllogisms, the first premise is usually a given; so that they > would be expressed as propositions like IF birds can fly, IF students > carry backpacks, IF professors exercise choice, etc.
There's a difference between a logical argument and a true argument expressed in logical form. My mistake. I assumed we were talking about the latter although I gave the impression I was talking about the former by casting it as "logically correct." Just goes to show -- words mean things. Many misunderstandings occur because terms are misused (as in this case) or abused (as in the case of Obama's "tax credit" for those who don't pay tax) > [Craig's explanation]: > > Pirsig's position is that chemistry professors ARE NOT > > composed exclusively of atoms. Atoms are not alive, > > don't have tenure & don't know chemistry. > > The MoQ levels address this issue. > > Of course Craig is right. Not only are atoms not alive, they are not > aware. You seem to assume that one must be alive to be aware. Pirsig challenges that assumption. > Therefore they have no knowledge, no values, and no morality. But to > learn > why Pirsig chose this analogy to claim > decision-making on the part of atoms, I checked out my paperback LILA to > discover that he was . actually talking about the Free Will/Determinism > controversy. His point was that "the difference between these two points > of > view is philosophic, not scientific." Unfortunately, however, he makes > several assertions in this paragraph that are unfounded and confusing to > anyone unfamiliar with his peculiar view of cosmic morality. > > For example: > > - "The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws." (Free Will?) > > - "Chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible > cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do so." > (Determinism?) > > - "We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation > that chemistry professors are, in general, moral." (Then comes the > syllogism to "prove" it.) > > With all due respect to the author, this is nonsense. First of all, > Pirsig > himself as much as tells us that experience creates our reality, which > suggests that any Free Will or Determinism perceived in existence is an > attribution by the cognizant subject. What must occur before the > experience > of process and causes is individuated awareness and its sense of Value. > Pirsig calls this sensibility "pre-intellectual experience", but he does > not > posit it as proprietary to the subject. In fact, he gives as much > value-sensibility to atoms and other objective phenomena as he gives to > the > individual who observes them. No, he doesn't. "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but do not react to them biologically socially or intellectually. They react to these experiences inorganically, according to the laws of physics." (LC, Note. 30.) Your entire argument appears to rest on denying experience or values to anything other than a "cognizant subject, i.e, a human being. > If man is not a free agent, where is the > Free > Will? Whose will is it that creates the universe? Obviously, Pirsig > wants > to be on the side of the objectivists who claim that everything is the > result of cause-and-effect determinism. No. Pirsig posits Quality prior to free will and/or determinism. > [Platt]: > > The premise is accepted by many physicists who believe all is > > simply different forms of energy. That's at the root of Pirsig's > > criticism of SOM. How does "everything is different forms of > > energy" explain quality? In fact, how does it explain "different > > forms?" (That's when "oops" comes in.) As for configuring > > atoms of a person, I'm sure you're familiar with, "Beam me up, > > Scotty." Fiction now, but who knows? > > Apart from the "oops" factor and the fact that the MoQ is a metaphorical > representation of physical existence, do you really believe that a human > being is no more than a particular arrangement of atoms or energy > patterns? Certainly not. I thought I made in clear that I don't accept the premise of physicists. A human being is a combination of physical, biological, social and intellectual patterns of value, plus the ability to respond to Dynamic Quality. In other words, as much as I admire your metaphysics of Essentialism, I believe in Pirsig's MOQ. But, I don't consider myself infallible. With kind regards, Platt 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/
