Hi dmb, Thank you for your post. I will address some of your remarks below:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:50 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark said: > My Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) was in the discipline of biotechnology. > ...Now, you may say that a Ph.D in Biotechnology is not a degree in > Philosophy. However, you would be mistaken since any of the sciences are > considered philosophies. A presentation of the world through biology, or > physics for that matter, is no different from the presentation of the world > through metaphysics. They are both presentations. A science is a > metaphysics. To believe otherwise implies that somehow the depiction of > reality through science is not a man-made depiction. > > dmb says: > While it's true that any Ph.D. qualifies you as a philosopher in some broad > sense, biotech and metaphysics are distinctly different disciplines. And of > course this biotech background explains why I was unable to detect any signs > of philosophical expertise. [Mark] I am not quite sure what you mean by "broad sense". If we are discussing metaphysics, it is the presentation of a Reality. Biotech is a presentation of reality as much as any metaphysics is. Why do you think it is called a doctorate of philosophy? Do you think this is some kind of accidental classification? Perhaps a history of the concept of Ph.D. could be in order, but I do not have the time for that. The fact that you perceive the two as different may be due to either a lack of understanding, or a need to compartmentalize human thought (philosophizing) into rigid categories which somehow puts such thoughts into distinct and non-overlapping categories. If you think there is a difference, then you do not understand science. Here I do not see many signs of expertise on your part in terms of what you are talking about. Can you categorically say that biotech and metaphysics are different? If so, what premises do you draw on? What exactly do you think science is? Both metaphysics and biotech are disciplines within the framework of philosophy. I live in the world of biotech, and I can categorically say that it is metaphysics. In biotech we create a system of measurements which are purely arbitrary, but lend to much meaning and usefulness. Measurements created in metaphysics through the use of words of accepted definitions are no different. We are talking about man-made constructions (or ghosts as Pirsig like to call them) here. Don't be beguiled by the wide acceptance of Science in this day and age. As a philosopher you should know better. I suppose that meaning is in the eyes of the beholder. If expertise must fit into your narrow definition of philosophy, then I can see why you see no value in my presentation. This is my loss, I suppose. > > Mark said: > ...Too many academics seem to think that they are superior to others because > of their degree. All that a degree is, is a lot of hard work. > > dmb says: > ...too many professional athletes seem to think that they are superior to > others because they made the team. All that means is a lot of talent and hard > work. It's nothing. Imagine if everyone made such an effort. What would the > world look like then? What did accomplishing stuff ever accomplish? Huh? [Mark] If an athlete did not have to perform on a daily basis to maintain his standing, then I could see your analogy working. However, this is not the case. If an athlete does not provide daily value, it does not matter what kind of degree the athlete has. Teams are not going to continue using an athlete just because he came from a respected athletic university. The academics, however, expect just that. They rely on their history more than on their productivity. I have seen way too many academics who are no longer productive but keep their positions because of some historical sense of value. Accomplished stuff is in the past, and has no bearing on the present. To believe it does, is simply to be living in some fantasy of the past. This fantasy only exists in one's head and is unreal. > > > Mark said: > ...My tools are different than say, somebody who has come through the ranks > of philosophical training and must resort to the words of others to make > themselves believable. > > > dmb says: > Within philosophy "the words of others" is called textual evidence. > Philosophers don't "resort" to quoting other philosophers just like > scientists don't "resort" to citing empirical data. That's just how the game > is played. That's how it's SUPPOSED to be played. It's an ongoing > conversation and so "the words of others" should play a very important role. > Pirsig engages with the words of all kinds of philosophers from the > pre-Socratics to the logical positivists. He and James are both described as > reconstructing philosophy, as effecting a Copernican revolution in philosophy > and one certainly needs to know something about the history of philosophy in > order to do that. [Mark] Yes, textual evidence, and yes, the same is true concerning scientific data. Here again is another reason to consider both disciplines the same. However, there is a limit to where such contextual evidence is useful. If science were simply to march along based on data of the past, it would not march at all. That is because new data must be generated. There is also a big difference between data, and theory however. I can deal with this at a later date. In the same way, there is a difference between contextual evidence and its use in developing MoQ. This of course you know. Therefore, there is a law of diminishing returns when one resorts to contextual evidence for creating a new philosophy. If one is always trying to tether MoQ onto some idea of the past, it will remain tethered. So, I would disagree with the notion that it is the way it is suppose to be played. Or if it is, Pirsig did not play by the rules. Pirsig's use of other philosophers is for the presentation of analogy. It does not mean that such philosophies are required to promote MoQ. He could have used any of a thousand philosophers to make his point. He selects specific ideas from others just to make his point, not because he needs such philosophy. Who is the authority who describes James and Pirsig as reconstructing philosophy? This would imply a structure to Quality, which you know is not the case. While it is presented in structural metaphors, these are just metaphors. It would appear that your linear thinking within philosophy in terms of structure does not allow much room for new ideas. (imo of course). > > Mark said: > ...How about if we discuss the ongoing battle between Ontology and > Epistemology which is what MoQ delves into. Let us do so without invoking > some dead philosopher. Want to give it a try? > > dmb says: > Actually, that was one of the comments that made me question your > philosophical expertise. The battle between ontology and epistemology? That's > what the MOQ delves into? I don't know what you mean by that. [Mark] Because you do not understand my comments you question my philosophical expertise? How does that work exactly? If you do not understand a complex book do you question the author's expertise? This seems rather small minded. In terms of Epistemology and Ontology: I will first bring in the philosopher Paul Benacerraf. In particular a paper he wrote on Mathematical Truth. This can be found at the following site: http://thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Benacerraf%20-%20Mathematical%20Truth.pdf Please note that in the introduction, he states: "It will be my general thesis that almost all accounts of the concept of mathematical truth can be identified with serving one or another of these masters at the expense of the other". Here he is referring to semantics and epistemology. I will use this same technique to describe the battle between Epistemology and Ontology. Using these terms in a dialectic. This would be similar to the dialectic between being and knowing. The ontological mode is to evoke "the view from nowhere" (see Tomas Nagel) as opposed to "the world as I found it" (see Wittgenstein). The point is to amalgamate the two views as attempted by Edmund Husserl (in terms of time). So we have the view of description which we are combining to the more intuitive view of reality. This is what, in my view, Pirsig is trying to do with evoking Zen concepts within a structural Western mentality. The forking of human thought is presented by Pirsig as having occurred in Greece in BC times. The attempt is to bring Ontology and Epistemology back together. We should not be supporting one side or the other at the expense of destruction. Construction is more important. Any reply on this is more than welcome. > > Mark said: > dmb, what is your interpretation of spiritual rationalism? > > > dmb says: > "Rationalism" and empiricism the two great rivals in the history of > philosophy. Plato and Descartes would be rationalists while Aristotle and > Hume are empiricists. I'd guess that you're asking about the meaning of > Pirsig's aim to expand rationality, not rationalism. In our time the term > "rational" is usually opposed to things like magic and religion but back in > the day rationality was considered a divine gift and the laws of math and > logic were considered to be windows into the mind of God. Descartes, Spinoza, > Hegel and Einstein all had this idea that God loves math and logic. > > Pirsig's expansion of rationality, in a nutshell, adds values, morals, the > affective domain of consciousness and otherwise pushes back against attitudes > of objectivity, of disinterested observation. It says that philosophy is a > form of art, one that grows out of your own life and its purpose is to serve > humanity and the ongoing process of evolution. [Mark] Yes, I would agree with this. I would also say that this is an attempt to meld that within with that without. Perhaps this gives a better understanding of what I mean by Epistemology and Ontology. The parts do not make the whole, nor does the whole describe the parts. What is lacking is Quality. To give due credit, some of the ideas for this presentation came from a book written by Palle Yourgrau (a philosopher at Brandeis University) Titled "A World Without Time -Persius Books. A good read. Cheers, Mark > > > > 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 > 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
