On 12/18/09 3:07 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham and all, I am happy to participate in your frivolity. Hopefully it clears the air. I thought you were a serious thinker, but posting the above to a site discussing Pirsig¹s metaphysics DQ undefined/SQ defined, evoked a belly laugh that was a fine relief. Keep up the comedy.
[Ham, previously]:
I disagree that "not everything [you] know is definable". Empirical knowledge is by definition definable.
Well, I'm glad to be a source of amusement where humor is called for. In this instance, however, it isn't. The main characteristic of empirical reality is that it is "definitive". Everything we know about it is defined by our experience. Objective knowledge is, in fact, a compendium of experiential definitions. The words which symbolize this knowledge are all defined in dictionaries or textbooks; and when we depart from the "universal" definition of something, we carefully point out the intended difference in order to be understood. The patterns of Pirsig's "defined SQ" are precisely that -- defined phenomena. Indeed, the only "undefined" entity in existence is the knowing subject and his/her emotional (valuistic) sensibility. To express what Socrates called "the unexamined self" in a comprehensible fashion, we must study the epistemology of philosophers who specialized in defining it. So where is the "frivolity"? [Joe, in his second post at 3:37 PM]:
I do appreciate your humor!
[Ham, previously]:
I was not aware that a "logic" could be derived from Pirsig's description of DQ/SQ. But, however you arrived at these conclusions, they are illogical.
Developing a logic (or even an epistemology) from a euphemistic description of Quality is an "Alice in Wonderland" project. Do you really think Static Quality is experiential knowledge?Sure, you can find "static" in the dictionary. (It means "standing or fixed in one place.") Quality is defined as "the nature, attribute, or grade" of a thing. But DQ/SQ is only a theory, and knowing a theory does not constitute experiential knowledge. Rather, it's the ability to recall or identify someone's hypothesis.
When you say "I reject idealism in favor of pragmatism," you are making an intellectual judgment call, not defining your experience. When you say "I accept realism in existence that accepts undefined DQ at a higher level than defined SQ," you are stating a theoretical premise which may be logical to you, but not to those indoctrinated to Pirsig's Quality hierarchy. Any metaphysical theory is "speculative" in that it is necessarily based on "ideological or intuitive" premises outside the realm of empirical experience. And, since logic applies only to relational systems, to postulate a non-relational (i.e., "undefined") source or cause is to invoke your own non-universal "logic".
Finally, you also said "Nothing has no existence." And, while that is true, it does not mean that a "non-thing", such as DQ or Absolute Essence is an invalid concept. It simply suggests that such a reality transcends, or is beyond, existential experience. Likewise, value-sensibility (subjective awareness) is "non-existent" by empirical standards; yet, without it we would have no existence to define or talk about.
Essentially speaking, Ham 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/
