________________________________
From: Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:48:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Menu/Reality issue
Ron:
No
[Ron]
When Pirsig places emphasis on "pre-intellect" he exhalts inductive
expereince over deductive reason. Declaring that it serves as a more
accurate standard of truth. When we deduce we create abstractions(entities)
and manipulate them within laws of operation (axioms).
[Krimel]
In what sense is Pirsig saying anything like "pre-intellectual" refers to
inductive experience. More to the point what is inductive experience?
Perhaps we don't use the same logic book but inductive "logic" in my book
means deriving general rules from the observation of particulars. Deductive
logic is applying general rules to particular instances. Also I don't
understand axioms to be laws operations. I thought they where formal
statements issued as givens without proof. They are initial assumptions.
Ron:
Follow what you just said and compare it to my statement.
inductive: Deriving generalaities from the observation of particular
EXPEREINCES.
we view this as prime over:
applying general concepts to particular EXPEREINCES.
Axioms are abstract deductive assumptions about the formal operations of
classical logic.
as your book states.
keep reading that book.
[Marsha earlier]
Even 'experience' is an analogy.
[Krimel earlier]
Analogous to what?
Ron earlier:
Dynamic Quality
[Krimel]
So Dynamic Quality is an analogy for experience?
Ron:
follow close now, experience is an analogy for DQ.
[Ham earlier]
Not if you understand that objects and events are phenomenal. They
represent our intellectual constructs of Value (or what Pirsig calls
"pre-intellectual experience").
Now, if you are regard Value as "mental", then everything is subjective and
reality is, indeed, a solipsism. But this is not what Pirsig says.
Instead, he equates Quality (Value) with Reality as primary to the S/O
patterns of experiential existence. These "patterns" are phenomena -- the
experienced "forms" of Value that we objectivize as Being.
[Krimel earlier]
You leave me wondering which meaning of phenomena you intend. In physics it
means events in the external world. In philosophy it refers to purely mental
events. Which do you mean or is the confusion intentional? You say that
'"patterns" are phenomena,' I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
How does one "objectivize" anything?
Ron:
He means both,
[Krimel]
How does one legitimately use a term that has conflicting meanings in both
senses at the same time?
Ron:
When one realizes that both meanings are ABSTRACTIONS.
[Ron earlier]
we objectivize when we take the menu for the food. when we take abstract
entities as what IS and hold that as truth.
[Krimel]
Who does this? Who actually thinks that the phonological construction "duck"
actually is a feathered web footed waddler? Do we "objectivize" when we take
a menu to be a menu?
Ron:
Who takes DQ/SQ for a dualistic reality of "things that wiggle and things that
don't"?
Ron:
Keeping Pirsig in mind when we use the term "static", static refers
to both mental and physical, both S and O. Thus it is not "purely" mental.
but expereince as a whole.
[Krimel]
Again I am afraid this doesn't help much. The original claim was that
patterns are conceptual. Aren't concepts purely intellectual?
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/
