Hey Steve, Astute response on all counts. Would it be correct to say, based on the MOQ and the lack of certainty, that one's worldview is, like beauty, a matter of taste?
Thanks, Platt On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:53, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Platt, Matt, > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, <[email protected]> wrote t"o Mary > > Right you are according to the MOQ. But some people believe God > > accounts for many things just as many others believe chance explains a > > lot (the "Oops" crowd). My point was that all-purpose explanations that > > ultimately depend on a mysterious force (DQ, God, Chance, etc.) are > > vulnerable to legitimate criticism. When it comes right down to it, the > > convictions people have about the way the world works depend on one > > or more unprovable assumptions. Regardless of how convincing, all > > metaphysics begins with a leap of faith. > > Steve: > I think it would be better to drop the idea of faith and say that the > selection of intellectual constructions is done based on Quality. > > Recall Pirsig's: "One can then examine intellectual realities the same > way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to > find out which one is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy and > keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual > reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality > than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history > and current patterns of values." > > Platt: > >> Bruce's example is an empirical fact established by observation and > >> experiment. But, where is the evidence that values are involved? How > >> do we convince doubters that the germ-immunity conflict is a moral > >> struggle? I mean it's easy to say that all battles are moral battles. But, > >> how do you prove it in court? > > Steve: > I don't think the sort of certainty about which picture (the Quality > picture or the subject-object picture of reality or some other > picture) is ultimately better is possible. There is no "objective > court" where a given picture must be proven to be the true picture. > There are only human perspectives where what we perceive as having > more quality is a "result of our [individual] histor[ies] and current > patterns of value." > > But we can hope to convince some others that the Quality picture is > better if we do a good enough job making our case. Cleary Pirsig's > arguments worked on us, but they did not work on, for example, Ham > (based on recent comments it seems that he has finally got around to > reading Pirsig's books). The way to convince someone is tell more and > better stories to disrupt his or her current patterns of value so that > new patterns of value are formed which are favorable to the MOQ. In > Ham's case, he identifies strongly with certain patterns that are > incompatible with the MOQ and is therefore unlikely to be swayed. > > I think Matt Kundert would argue that the sort of metaphysical > certainty you are looking for is what drove Pirsig to insanity and > later to developing a new metaphysics. > > Matt, what do you think? Did Pirsig find some comfortable resolution > in his quest for certainty? > > Best, > Steve 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/
