To the adults on the list, Please consider this link to the epilogue to the very fascinating book of Richard Tarnas, "The Passion of the Western Mind", which was a prelude to a really way out, but interesting work "Cosmos and Psyche".
http://www.gaiamind.org/Tarnas.html In this chapter, the Post-Copernican Double Bind, Tarnas does an excellent job of outlining the basic problem that Pirsig has also brought to our attention. I would be interested to hear what you think of Tarnas' solution to the Double Bind. I find it similar to Pirsig's. And as you might guess, I disagree with his solution.. But I'll be interested to hear your opinions. I think the chapter by Tarnas will be a good background to our discussion of the epistemology of quality. How many different ways are there of knowing anything? Ayn Rand, reduces it to only 2. You could stretch it to 3, or 4 maximum, depending on how you choose your categories. Consider these two perspectives (Cartesian - mind reflects objective reality and Kantian - mind creates reality). Is this also the Classical-Romantic split A third view might be termed a "received" point of view. In the case of the 3rd view, that of "receiving" a point of view we might say receiving a view from a spiritual agency, or some other agency. Tarnas, following Hegel, thinks he can receive this revelation from nature. The Christian view, of course, is that this revelation is received from God, the Creator, not the creation. Do try to keep in mind the ideas, and the relationship of the Creator and creation in all these different views. And also I want to address the issue of the problem with being rational and irrational at the same time. I want to look at this question from each of the 3, or 4 world views. I will use Tarnas as an example from a new age perspective, Ayn Rand from her objectivist position, really the Enlightenment or Cartesian view, and Cornelius Van Till, and Herman Dooyeweerd to bring it all home with the Christian or Biblical perspective. Interestingly, all 3 see a real problem with being rational and irrational at the same time. That is what causes the distortion in thinking, feeling and being, that is a double bind-that is truly, the crisis of our age. Consider the following excerpt from Ayn Rand for a good outline of these 3, possibly 4 perspectives, fundamental to all world views: "As to the issue of their being 3 world views- this leads to the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy: the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of existence (of realty) is the axiom that existence exists,i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists-and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness-the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal).* *["Package-dealing" is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or "package," elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.] This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. As far as can be observed, infants and savages do not grasp it (they may, perhaps, have some rudimentary glimmer of it). Very few men ever choose to grasp it and fully to accept it. The majority keep swinging from side to side, implicitly recognizing the primacy of existence in some cases and denying it in others, adopting a kind of hit-or-miss, rule-of-thumb epistemological agnosticism, through ignorance and/or by intention-the result of which is the shrinking of their intellectual range, i.e., of their capacity to deal with abstractions. I believe this last paragraph describes P and moq which inevitably leads to package dealing. He jumps from the rational to the irrational to fit his whim and personal bias. Any view that does not acknowledge the Creator-creation distinction will inevitably end up being rational and irrational at the same time. Thanks, Jon 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/md/archives.html
