> [Krimel] > I think this quote points to Pirsig at his best and worst. It reveals > his instinct for critical problems that demand a shift in modern > thinking. There are issues with the notion of causality. But the > problem is solved by correcting the misconception that "...the word > "cause" implies absolute certainty..." That may have been true after > Newton or even in the late 50's or early 60s when Pirsig was studying > in Chicago. But a probabilistic understanding of causality solves the > problem and puts the platypus in a proper cage. Causality simply means > highly probable not absolutely certain.
[Bo] You know my position on this issue. It's like a general trying to monitor everything down to platoon level, while he should relegate this to the chain of command. Causation as a scientific (physics) tool works fine at the static intellectual level. The Q versions of the various academic disciplines has no future, "Render unto Caesar ...etc" . MOQs business is the overall metaphysical context and there it does a marvelous job. [Krimel] Actually I don't know your position and frankly I don't see how a single thing you said makes any contact with what I said. A sense of causation is not one bit limited to the scientific domain. Perhaps you just had something random to said and decided to attach it to my post. Thanks a lot. > [Bo] > That is not to mention Bo's anthropomorphic levels, warring with one > another and having desires and purposes. Extending awareness to the > inorganic is bizarre enough but here we have someone extending purpose > to abstractions. It's difficult to avoid anthro .... When speaking about USA's "war on terrorism" ... wanting to eradicate it, it's purpose to make the world safe ...etc its sounds like a country personified. The static levels and their relationship is what gives the MOQ it's enormous explanatory power. Awareness has no place in (my) MOQ, its also an intellectual value pattern. [Krimel] It is only difficult if you are locked into that mode of thinking about things. To the extent that I read you posts it seems to me that in is not just a manner of speak but a manner of speaking that reflects that actual way you see this. For you the levels have some kind of independent existence filled with desires, motives and purposes. This is a bad way of thinking and a bad way of talking. But you know my position on this. The levels are a secondary aspect of the MoQ and whatever explanatory power they might have is squandered because no one agrees on where to divide the levels or having agreed on a dividing line can agree and what falls under what level. In your previous post to David you mention Kant. Where in either book does Pirsig dismiss Kant's argument? Please anyone can answer the question. 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/
