Hey, David --
Ham said:
Actual experience is the basis of empirical knowledge, not metaphysical
conceptualization, as you should know. Metaphysics is always
"abstraction".
dmb says:
Let me stop you right there because I can already see that you do not
understand this criticism. The idea here is not to oppose abstractions.
The idea is to stop abusing abstractions and instead use them properly.
And what is the "proper" use of abstract concepts according to the MOQ?
They come from past experience and their point and purpose is to guide
future experience. When they become detached and float free of this
experiential reality, abstractions become vicious. When they are used to
denigrate the empirical reality from which they are derived, abstractions
become vicious. When they are taken to be more real than the empirical
reality to which they refer, this is an abuse of abstractions. In the MOQ,
metaphysics and truth and ideas are static intellectual quality and these
verbal and conceptual static patterns are always secondary. They always
exist in relation to experience or when they don't it is like a broken
circuit
or a wrench in the gears. This is a form of pragmatism, which says true
ideas
are the ones that function in experience, the concepts that lead you into
harmonious relations, that you can smoothly ride upon in experience.
Bad ideas will lead you into confusion, isolation or even danger. And then
there are ideas that make no difference at all because they're purely
verbal,
so abstract as to be unconnected to anything known in experience.
This is what I'm saying about your key terms, especially "Essence".
For James and Pirsig, there is no such thing. As James famously said,
the essence of a thing is just whatever we find most important about it.
It's not an actual entity or an eternal principle. It's just an
abstraction,
something we carve out of experience.
You say so much in defense of your position that I hardly know where to
start (and usually don't).
James is hailed for his pragmatism which stemmed largely from his practice
in psychology. The pragmatists of the last two centuries have been
scientists (objectivists). Their goal is to explore the physical world for
empirical knowledge and principles that can be applied to solving problems
and inventing new things. They have no professional interest in aesthetics,
morality, human values, or a transcendent reality. Indeed, such subjective
concepts are only distractions to the experimental method.
Pirsig wanted his philosophical legacy to be identified with "radical
empiricism", although it is clear that he viewed the logical positivists as
his nemesis. I think the category that best fits him is "pragmatic
idealist", for he is more interested in anthropology and societal
development than in metaphysics. His ontological paradigm is an
evolutionary hierarchy of Quality levels that govern the universe, including
mankind (when individuals are fortunate enough to "latch onto" the higher
levels.) There is no Creator in this existential scheme (Quality is
utimately self-created), no teleology except for the 'betterness" toward
which the universe automatically moves, and no need for a free agent, since
the universe is assumed to be inherently moral. In short, this "empirical
reality" which you tout as "the guide to future experience" is no more than
interacting patterns of quality carried along in the stream of evolution.
"This is a form of pragmatism," you say, in which "true ideas are the ones
that function in experience, the concepts that lead you into harmonious
relations that you can smoothly ride upon in experience." In other words,
Truth is what works, and the only ideas worth pursuing are those programmed
into us from history.
Can you understand why your denial of free will and free choice is for me an
"abuse of abstraction"? Or why a controlling universe that allows no
meaning or purpose for the individual human is a "vicious abstraction"?
dmb further says:
Again, the idea here is to stop the ABUSE of concepts. In those quotes
Pirsig is saying that metaphysical ideas ought not be confused with
reality.
The idea is NOT to say that menus are bad, just that it is a mistake to
eat
the menu. Eating the menu or thinking it more real than the food is the
mistake
known as reification. The MOQ is not metaphysical in that sense, in the
sense
of positing entities or principles that are outside of experience, whether
it's
supposed to be the conditions behind experience, under experience as a
foundation or above experience as some divine principle. The pragmatist
will not rule out any idea in advance as long as we take such notions as a
working hypothesis and put it to work in experience. If your idea can not
be
put to the test because, by definition, it represents something that can't
be
known or tried out in experience, then the pragmatist will say it is an
empty,
useless idea.
Your stand as a pragmatist, then, is that if the truth about reality cannot
be known, it is useless. But what if direct knowledge of this truth is
withheld from us for a reason -- suppose it would impair our lives as
existents, or induce suicidal thoughts, for example; or on the positive
side, suppose it would afford us such insight and wisdom that we might live
in peace and harmony with all humanity without fear of bodily harm or
retribution? Would such a concept still be "an empty, useless idea"? How
could we ever know if we are not permitted to consider it?
In my own defense, I have not proposed any idea or notion that is harmful to
human culture, or that cannot be incorporated into a belief system with
salutary results. I don't know if this qualifies as "testable", but it
should certainly clear me of any "vicious" intent. Again, a metaphysical
thesis is not a praxis which a society can quickly adapt to, so I've steered
away from polemics and political ideologies, except for those which foster
individual freedom, personal authenticity, and self-reliance.
I'll refrain from commenting on your last two paragraphs extolling a book
that describes "getting a grasp of the situation," since you have outlined
the theme quite nicely. Indecisiveness to the extent of Lehrer's example is
a rare malady, although I've seen such behavior in autism and attention
deficiency disorders. I accept the co-functioning of feeling and thinking,
David, so you don't need to sell it to me. Where we differ is that you
believe Quality (Value) is directly experienced, whereas I maintain that it
is sensed prior to and "shapes or objectifies" experience.
Thanks for the opportunity to exchange views.
Essentially speaking,
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
