Platt- It is my impression were saying essentially the same thing in different words in response to Ham. Thank you though. I feel like I owe Ham an apology or something, but that's a different story. I shall await his response eagerly.
-Zenith ---------------------------------------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:30:09 -0400 > Subject: Re: [MD] differences between MoQ and SOM > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 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/
