On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:24 PM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Ham:
The adage that "everything gets known by some knower"
has a poetic ring to it that makes us feel good, but it's without
epistemological foundation.
Andre:
This is exactly what Pirsig means. You say: '[it] makes us feel good'
(which is a statement about value) but dismiss it before you are even
finished... .
'See how this works? A thing doesn't exist because we have never observed
it. The reason we have never observed it is because we
have never looked for it. And the reason we have never looked for it
is that it is unimportant, it has no value and we have better things to
do'.(ibid, p 147).
I could not find this Lila quote in my softback edition, but it is worth
analyzing.
If a thing doesn't exist because we have never observed it, then it is our
observation (i.e., experience) that "creates" the thing. A thing can have
neither "importance" nor "value" if it is not known or experienced by an
observer. So Pirsig's assertion that "the reason we have never looked for
it is that it is unimportant" makes no sense, unless something other than
the observer determines what is important. I assume the author wants us to
believe that it is Quality, not the observing subject, which makes this
determination.
This illustrates how Pirsig misconstrues epistemology to support his Quality
thesis. For if the cosmos or 'Quality universe' predetermines what is
important or valuable, then man has no choice in the matter and is in effect
a slave of Quality. You see, Andre, I happen to believe that the human
individual is the free agent of his reality. The MoQ would have us deny
this freedom, thereby also denying the meaning and purpose of human
existence.
This leads me to conclude that, after all these years you do not
comprehend Pirsig's MOQ, still blinded by your subject-object essence.
However you assess my comprehension of Pirsig, I have never advanced a
"subject-object essence". (This isn't the first time you've attempted to
criticize me with words taken out of context, Andre.)
[Ham, to DMB]:
I agree that Value (Quality) plays a significant noetic role in ontology;
but it is derived from Essence rather than the cosmos. And without
realization by a "sensible" agent, it is meaningless.
[Andre]:
Here you go, the separation of subject (sensible agent) from object
('from Essence'). The MOQ is a program that adheres to radical empiricism.
It is above all a program about values ordered within an evolutionary
framework. Dmb has used this observation a few times but I will use it
again:
As Charlene Seigfried, an eminent James scholar, says: 'What is'
(metaphysics)
cannot be designated apart from how we know it (epistemology). Neither can
it be grasped apart from what we value'. The traditional distinctions
between
ontology, epistemology and ethics breaks down so that knowledge and will,
facts and values are fused and this is how the MOQ unites facts and
values.
If the MOQ is radical empiricism, then Essentialism is 'radical idealism'.
It holds that "what is" CAN be postulated apart from how we know it, that
value-sensibility and will need not be fused to empirical facts.
As you say above, you simply reject Pirsig's MOQ thesis and that
is why I am still wondering what you are doing here Ham. I mean this
respectfully. Look carefully at the sentence you wrote above: 'And without
realization by a 'sensible agents, it is meaningless'. Think
about it in the light of what I wrote, specifically the word
'realization'. For something to be 'realized' it must have value,
otherwise one will not realize it. No matter how 'sensible' your agent is.
This is what Pirsig's MOQ is made up of.
I could list several reasons for my participation in MD, but you would only
throw them back at me as "self-serving ego gratification" or something
equally demeaning. This is because it frustrates you that what you call
Quality exists only insofar as it is realized by a conscious agent. Not
only is your epistemology misconstrued, so is your rejection of the Primary
Source. I suspect you know this intuitively, and this only adds to your
frustration.
Respectfully,
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
