Ham, I would be willing to concede the neccessity of the concept of the self, soul, or sensible agent, as defined by the limits of cognition and perception if you would concede that this concept is indeed a manifestation of these said limits and by no means an absolute "entity". Instead of constantly attempting to level Pirsig, why not introduce dialog which explores the issue at hand.
________________________________ From: X Acto <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:48:52 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism [Marsha]: > Reductionism: "Everything in the Universe can be understood in terms > of quarks and leptons." [Platt]: > Nicely summarized. Ask a reductionist "Where do quarks and leptons > come from?" you'll get a blank stare or from an honest reductionist the > reply, "Don't ask." Ham: Quarks and leptons notwithstanding, the universe is understood in terms of subjects and objects. This has nothing to do with theoretical physics or scientific principles. It's an empirical truth that we know from experience. Just because we don't know precisely what objects are or what the nature of "selfness" is doesn't mean they don't exist or that they must be "explained away" in order for us to be "enlightened". That's no philosophical breakthrough; it's just plain foolishness. Ron: These concepts about expereince are in fact "real", what gives them reality is their Pragmatic conventionalism. To say that these concepts are illusionary does not mean that they do not exist, simply put, they do not exist as conventionally apprehended. Conceptual/perceptual understanding is created by their limits of apprehension. To be aware of this fact, free's one from notions of absolute "truth". Being free from thinking within one absolute paradigm enables one to take on different perspectives, finding the mean, or value among many truths. This, in light of classical western thought, is a huge philosophical breakthrough. The foolishness is the belief in one absolute way to distinguish one absolute truth. Ham: The "chaos" he attributed to "Dynamic Quality alone" may have been a result of his altered state of mind, as there is no logic to support the view that a primary source is chaotic in the absence of patterns. On the contrary, a pure source -- Quality, Value, or Essence -- has no disparate elements but is homogeneous, whereas chaos is defined as "a confused heterogeneous agglomeration." Obviously, Phaedrus's focus was limited to what was "inside the box" (experiential patterns) rather than the primary source or nature of the box. In fact, the MoQ thesis never transcends the physical universe. It is a hierarchical ontology based on a euphemistic or "romantic" notion of Quality. As such the MoQ falls seriously short of what classical philosophers would regard as a metaphysics. Ron: It is "classical metaphysics" which is limited, so of course it would see Quality as irrational and illogical, It does not recognize value. You keep wanting to measure millimeters in inches then complain that there is not enough clarity. Ham: Whether physical existence is ultimately "real" or not, the S/O split is the fundamental reality of existence. We can't make a metaphysics out of objective reality any more than we can impart Quality to it. What is sadly missing in Pirsig's philosophy is the sensible agent, without which neither quality nor value can be realized. Ron: If the question is raised about the reality of physical existence then it only stands to "reason" that the fundemental nature is an assumption, the assumption your arguement rests on. So if, by your own admission, that the reality of physical existence is in question, it would seem your assumption is also in question. Being in question, it is hardly the "fact" of the matter now is it? 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/ 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/
