On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Dan Glover [email protected] wrote:
Hello everyone
[Ham to dmb, previously]:
We all participate in a subject/object world that is the source
of all our knowledge. The conscious experience of that world
has its locus in the individual self. The MoQ that Pirsig
"designed to replace it" would have us pretend that we are
living an illusion, that there are no subjects and objects, no
freedom to choose, no role for mankind other than to go with
the flow to "betterness" that is automatic in the author's
evolutionary Quality.
[Dan]:
Since we've agreed to disagree, I would like to point out some
possible flaws in your thinking here, Ham. This subject-object world
isn't primary. It is not the source of our knowledge by any stretch of
the imagination.
Can you provide a known fact or example of knowledge that is not based on
empirical experience?
We have been trained to believe that a subject observes objects
and both are independent of one another, but it is just training that
makes it so. Quantum theory has shown that it is impossible to
measure an object without disturbing it... observer and observed
are linked... there is no independent observer.
Who "trained" you to recognize objects as external and independent of you?
Physicists who investigate quantum phenomena have concluded that observation
(i.e., the observer) affects the relational parameters by which such
phenomena are measured. Since these parameters (mass, velocity, energy,
gravity, etc.) are intellectual precepts to begin with, what this suggests
is that experiential knowledge is limited to the micro/macro range of human
perception, and quantum physics exceeds our reach.
But RMP does not dismiss individual freedom, at least as far as I
know. Maybe you could point out some relevant quotes. He does
however say that the individual is fictitious, that both science and
Buddhism have come to the same conclusions, and that any philosophy
based on individualism is fraught with problems, which I have
explained in an earlier post.
You won't find it, Dan. "Individual freedom" is notable by its absence in
Pirsig's works. It's troubling to me that a full-blown, allegedly
humanistic philosophy would ignore free will, personal choice, individual
intentionality, and a proper epistemology for cogizant awareness. Simply
defining the conscious self as an "interrelated pattern of Quality" doesn't
fill the bill. Someone here recently suggested that Freedom is more
intrinsic to Dynamic Quality than to man, and this strikes me as missing the
whole point of human existence. Certainly a "philosophy based on
individualism is fraught with problems"; but so is a philosophy based on
Value. By rejecting both individual subjectivity and empirical reality, the
author creates more problems than his MoQ resolves, in my opinion.
[Ham, previously]:
In ZMM Pirsig says ""When one person suffers from a delusion,
it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is
called a Religion."
In the Copleston Annotations, Pirsig notes: "The MOQ is atheistic".
Is this not a rejection of religion? And what supports your conclusion
that one can be religious and reject "faith and supernaturalism"?
[Dan]:
Religion is a coming together. The MOQ is anti-theistic, not
atheistic. Theism is the belief in a supernatural power, be it God,
Allah, Jehovah... whatever. The MOQ is empirical. It does not
subscribe to supernatural solutions. Neither does the MOQ
denouce religion, however.
The MOQ may be empirical in approach -- but radically so, as it does not
acknowledge
the objective reality of traditional empiricism. Again, you and dmb dismiss
the fact that Pirsig referred to his own philosophy as "atheistic" and
denounced religion in general.
How do you define "supernatural"? If it means "transcending nature", then I
submit that metaphysics itself is supernatural by default. The author had
no use for metaphysics because it was "nothing but definitions", and a
definition would reduce his concept to a static pattern. Perhaps he
declined to posit DQ as the primary source because he wanted to avoid a
"supernatural connotation" for this otherwise ineffable force. Then again,
perhaps we shall never know.
I'm sorry you disagree with my fundamentals, Dan. But thank you for the
kind response.
Best regards,
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/md/archives.html
