Dave T.
1 Feb.:
Bo before:
> > This uncanny conclusions was what Kant called "reinen Verunft" (pure
> > reason) and set out to criticize in his grand work "Kritik Der
> > Reinen Vernunft". His conclusions was that much of reality (space,
> > time and causality, is subjective but there is a residual "Thing in
> > itself" (out there) and this has been the "last word", not until
> > Pirsig has Western philosophy moved forward after Kant.
[Pirsig ZaMM]
Kant is trying to save scientific empiricism from the
consequences of its own self-devouring logic. He starts out at
first along the path that Hume has set before him. "That all our
knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt," he
says, but he soon departs from the path by denying that all
components of knowledge come from the senses at the
moment the sense data are received. "But though all
knowledge begins with experience it doesn¹t follow that it
arises out of experience." "Kant says there are aspects of
reality which are not supplied immediately by the senses.
These he calls a priori. An example of a priori knowledge is
"time." You don¹t see time. Neither do you hear it, smell it,
taste it or touch it. It isn¹t present in the sense data as they are
received. Time is what Kant calls an "intuition," which the mind
must supply as it receives the sense data.
[Dave]
> Did Kant reject empiricism? No, after accepting the original premise,
> he goes on attacked the conclusions the British Empiricists drew from
> it. And ended up with "a priori knowledge" and "thing in itself"
> proposal which science and philosophy in the ensuing years has
> clarified to the point where both phrases are quaint artifacts of
> good, yet 200 year old thought. To those who trace their positions
> back to Kant's " empiricism" now means something different than
> before. That is "philosophical evolution" if you will. I could go on
> and show that further evolution has move "empiricism" on and science
> has by and large accounted for "a priori", but you know all this Bo.
> I'd rather investigate some other issues with the MoQ that may bear on
> this thread that have come to me based on our recent "discussions" (I
> stretch the meaning of that I know) and my recent investigations of
> the "Science Wars"
Physics, science have certainly moved on since Kant - Relativity and
Quantum Mech. f.ex. - but philosophy itself not at all. With Kant SOM
had reached the end of its its tether: the subject supplied some (a-
priori) qualities: Time,space and causality, yet from out there came
some priori something that were filtered trough the said sieves. And
since Kant nothing has happened philosophical-wise, the famous
Quantum Theory results find no explanation by SOM and the big
science magazines that once used to be full of physics stuff has
given up on it and every other article is now on psychological,
behavioral, brain and mind stuff. See when SOM fails there is no
alternative, academy won't touch the MOQ with a poker.
> One is the whole issues of levels and the hierarchies shown in the
> ZaMM and SODV diagrams; Are these graphic models helpful or deceiving?
Are you asking me? At least one can't go directly from SOM to the
static levels, the DQ/SQ split must first replace the S/O one, after that
the levels are most revealing. However the diagrams in ZAMM is not
the least helpful, rather deceiving. The ones in the SODV paper?? The
ones about MOQ and the Uncertainty Principle may be valid for all I
know, but the diagram about intellectual + social = subjective/biology +
inorganic = objective is the source of all ills.
> Second are RMP descriptions of the codes associated with the levels
> and their relationships correct? Do they jive with current science?
The levels and their internal "codes" are perfect, but this neither jives
or need to jive with science which is confined to the 4th level and THIS
jives with EXPERIENCE.
> Third is what happened to Romantic Quality and pre-intellectual
> awareness in the transition between the ZaMM and Lila?
Nothing! The Romantic/Classic has signs of the Dynamic/Static one,
so Pirsig needed not say that it was a "false start", rather a good start.
"Pre-intellectual awareness" ...well the 'awareness' term grates my
nerves as it sound like a "consciousness" must be present for - for
instance - inorganic value to operate. But this will take a whole page to
explain.
> But first maybe a brief synopsis of my limited understanding of the
> "Science Wars" First there was/is "hard science"(physics, biology etc)
> and "soft science"(anthropology, sociology etc) the former looking
> down on latter as being a form of subjectivism. Not real science.
> Second, starting almost with the Greeks there was an ever increasing
> specialization and professionalization of science such that by the
> start of the 20th century there were so many specialized branches each
> with its own jargon, language, that communication and understanding
> breaks down. No one can understand it all let alone try to figure out
> the philosophical consequences.
> Enter Thomas Kuhn, a Harvard trained Ph'd physicist and a scientific
> fence jumper who went to the dark side devoting most of his career to
> the history and philosophy of science. That's not science. Or was it?
> What he proposed was, if science is so good at what it does why not
> use science to study science itself?
All this is interesting enough but we must be caught in academy's
(SOM's) internal squabblings. The fact is that the S/O is an unstable
configuration, I've called it a "see-saw", when objectivity goes down
subjectivity goes up, but it does not last then it reverses. A typical
example is SOM's "nurture/nature" off-shot, i.e. that we are either a
result of upbringing or of genes. These two has (by now I believe)
equilibrium, i.e. an agreement that we are influenced by both by some
inexplained mechanism. But it does not last, a "materialist" will emerge
and declare that genes are the REAL cause, and this may be the
fashion for years until it shifts back to "nurture" for some period until a
new equilibrium emerges, before it starts anew. And this goes for all
SOM's dualisms from the subject/object one itself, to mind/matter,
mind/body, mental/corporeal, psychic/physic, culture/nature,
nurture/nature .... etc. there are more that I can't recall, but your "soft-/
hard sciences" are part of SOM's repertoire and as unstable as the
rest. The instability is sure sign of the S/O not being existence's
fundament.
Bodvar
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/
