Hey Dan,
[I began this post before you finished your own reply--you'll see the change-over, and perhaps the reason why I didn't reconfigure my response.] I assume that you accidentally hit reply in the middle of your response, but I wish to stop you (if I could) to ask that you not go bit by bit through the post, responding as you think at the moment of reading, but read the whole thing and respond holistically. For I've asked you to do one thing first and foremost if the conversation will move forward, and it should appear right up front. I apologize for making demands, but it appears from the beginning of your response again that we would just keep spinning in the mud. In response my suggestion that we bring unicorns into the mix you say, "But I did say why... I didn't recapitulate our discussion on NYC as I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that we made a little headway there, whereas by bringing unicorns into the discussion we are lowering the quality." -You- -are- -assuming- -wrongly-. This has been the underlying thought behind my last few messages, which have began with versions of "I don't know what we're talking about." I tried to consolidate what I thought about NYC and dog dishes, but your response confused me. You insist that you have better assurance of NYC's existence then a dog dish in your own kitchen. (If you even say you don't have a dog dish in your kitchen, you should just stop reading now and we can call this conversation quits.) My attempts to figure out why have proven unsuccessful, and I think it revolves around the fact that I do not understand how you are consistently using words like "hypothetical," "imaginary," "experience," and "observation." My thought experiment should've brought out some of those understandings, as would a comparison on the relative modes of existence of NYC, unobserved dog dishes, and unicorns. You think this would just lower the quality of the conversation, but I can't see why. It would solidify a number of baselines for the parameters under which we could triangulate each others responses that we, apparently, each find suspicious (you for suspecting I'm a scientific materialist I gather; me for suspecting you're a Cartesian). So, if you want to continue, please begin by responding to this: Matt said: I've been, for quite a while, trying to figure out what you think the relationship is between first-person experience and Quality-experience, and additionally rock-experience. I haven't been able to figure the consistency of your usage, and you also haven't elaborated a theory of any kind. Dave has had this problem, too, as we can tell from his last response and your brush-back in reply. (This was his "oh, I think I see the problem." I had a similar light bulb go off about your use of "imaginary" three weeks back, but I've yet to figure out how you are consistently using that term, either.) If you want to continue this conversation, you will have to supply an outline of how you will consistently use, for the sake of this conversation, the following terms: "experience," "imaginary," "direct experience," "indirect experience," "hypothetical," "presupposition," "observation," "common sense," "philosophy," "thought-experiment," and "independent of experience." We can start there. I'm sorry it has come to this, but given the wheel-spinning, there's no reason to converse if we can't consistently stay on the same page of the conversation. However, since I've begun this post, I see that you've responded to those two bits like this: Dan said to the first paragraph: As far as I could see, his attempt at discerning the problem was not quite correct, as I attempted to explain. You seem to be asking for answers to questions but when I attempt to offer an explanation you either ignore what I said or claim I am being inconsistent. I supposed earlier in our discussion that we are both coming from vastly different background and that is one reason for our disagreements. As the discussion progressed, it seems as if you believe I have this all figured out and I am merely withholding that knowledge. In fact, I am pretty much making this up as I go along although (of course) I am drawing on the knowledge I have gleaned over the last dozen years of participation in this discussion group and the continued study of RMP's work. Matt: I'm sorry you thought I was ignoring you. I thought I was engaging the answers you had given. (Perhaps, in fact, in the mode of wondering about the presuppositions to your answers.) That would be one problem in our conversation: you didn't think I was being fair to you. The claims of inconsistency weren't mean to be malicious, but they are necessary, particularly if one doesn't have it all figured out. I have absolutely no wish to pressure anyone to only speak or write when they "have this all figured out," whatever the "this" is. That is sincere. But in the midst of conversation, isn't it imperative that we try and carve out the consistent space we call "the philosophical position I want to occupy"? I have been trying to understand what your position is in regard to things like NYC and dog dishes (and now unicorns), but I don't get it. You did attempt to explain, but it appears that we have each reached the end of our rope, where we have no more will to try again at either explaining or attempting to understand. One thing I would insist, though, is that you not blame this on elitism, which is what I sense you keep edging toward with "vastly different background" and "merely withholding the knowledge." You're emoting a sense that I've done you an injustice, but I'm sorry: I explained what I meant by "reticence" and it is just that there are intuitions about the way the world works that I'm trying to elicit from you that I'm not getting and I'm at wits end to understand how to ask for them. We are not on the same page. And this is how you responded to that (which was my second paragraph above): Dan said: You're right... you would probably be better served directing your comments to folk like dmb and Steve Peterson. They seem much better at elaborating what it is you seem to be after here. For the record though, the dictionary definitions are a good beginning point for all the words you are seeking to identify. Matt: I was after what you thought, because it appeared that you disagreed with something. And absolutely no, dictionary definitions are not a good beginning point because I wanted to know how _you_ were going to _use_ your words so that I could then only use them in that matter. Think of it like a contract: we would each attempt to stay consistent to them. If I'm not mistaken, you said at one point that the unobserved dog dish in the kitchen was "imaginary." But how does that stay consistent with the dictionary definition, which tends to reflect common sense and would reserve "imaginary" for unicorns? Do you see? I wanted not just definitions, but also an idea of how you would consistently _use_ the words to carve out a consistent understanding of Pirsig's epistemology. Is there no difference between a unicorn and an unobserved dog dish? I have no ability to predict how you'd respond to that question, or what kind of difference you would elaborate. That's bad. That means I don't understand you. Predictability is of the essence when one aims for consistency. I think part of this is attributable to your read-and-respond mode of engaging a post. It appears that you write whatever occurs to you when you read a block of text. When we don't have something completely figured out, though, this can cause a weather-vane effect, as one is blown in the direction of whatever intuition about the way the world works is cued up by the block in question. The problem with this is that we can have conflicting intuitions. It is the purpose of philosophy to help make them more consistent. I've been trying to put together holistically your responses, to try and figure out what their center of gravity is. I got nothing. That doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means it's beyond my powers to understand where you philosophical "are" through the kinds of responses you're giving me. I read an entire post before I go back and compose a response. This allows me to soak the whole thing in and gives me a better chance to have a consistent line of thought in all of the itemized responses (how successful that consistency is is of course a separate question). All this being said, and because you appear to have come to the conclusion at the end of your last post that I'm maliciously misconstruing you, I want to pull out one place where I think I can succinctly demonstrate that there is something you are doing that you are not acknowledging. Whatever consistency there is might be further talked about, and I do not do this to be malicious or claim you're stupid or any other hang ups we might have in a conversation. We cannot understand what we are doing until we understand what we are doing. Tautological, yes, but you've increasingly claimed that I already know answers to things I want clarification about. What I want to know is the relationship you see between "observation" and "experience" (and really, between the "indirect" and "direct" kinds), but you think I'm jerking your chain. I'm not jerking your chain. I'm trying to understand you, Dan, and I'm sorry my frustration is bubbling over. This is the series: Matt said first: However, maybe you misspoke, and meant that Don wouldn't have _that specific_ worry of "if I leave the room, maybe the dog dish will disappear!" unless he was mentally impaired, and that's what common sense tells you. You'd probably be right then, but you'd have also short-circuited the thought-experiment before it told you anything interesting. The interesting part only appears when you recognize Don's similarity to Descartes. Dan said then: So we have to entertain the Cartesian notion that the world of objects is independent of we as subjects doing the observing. Why is that interesting? It seems more like backsliding to me... Matt said: No, Dan, it's about understanding what a successful defusing of Cartesianism looks like. One has to understand what it means to give a Cartesian response before one can understand how to avoid giving a Cartesian response. (And note that you've conflated "observation" with "experience" again here.) Dan said: Huh. I don't see that I wrote "experience" so I assume you are assuming again... Matt: I have to, Dan, because you won't tell me. If I'm not mistaken, you have been pressing the claim that Dave and I construe "object permanence" as "independent of experience." You then shake your head, saying that doesn't make any sense from a Pirsigian standpoint. We agree, so we've tried to explain what "object permanence" is _without_ relying on the anti-Pirsigian claim of "independent of experience." The sense of "experience" in this phrase is the one you give here: "It isn't my experience. It is experience." That's the sense of Quality=reality=experience=DQ; the sense in which it is the ocean our individual bodies is a boat in. We agree that nothing can be independent of "experience" _in that sense_. But look at your construal of Cartesianism: "the world of objects is independent of we as subjects DOING THE OBSERVING." Suddenly, so it seems to me as I've attempted to keep a tally on what the center of gravity of your philosophical position is, you've substituted your problem of anything being "independent of experience" with "independent of we as subjects doing the observing." However, I don't know what you think the relationship is between Quality-defined-experience and subject-observing. But because of the rhetorical condition of this answer (in which Cartesianism is the problem to be avoided), it appears as if you'd interchanged Quality-experience with subject-observation, thus making them synonymous in the philosophical position you are occupying in this conversation. I can't be sure about this synonymy because I still cannot predict your responses to questions about different modes of existence that NYC, unobserved dog dishes, and unicorns may or may not have. Therefore, I cannot properly evaluate whether I agree or disagree with you. I may have misunderstood what you meant. But you aren't telling me what the consequences of your statements are to our overall conversation or to your overall position, so I have to _assume_ some possibilities and field them in order to get a read on what you "mean." And I'm getting tired of it, particularly as you seem to think I'm doing something malicious by trying to understand you. The above line of reasoning is why I suggested that your use of "observing" signaled a conflation of "observation" and "experience," despite the fact that you didn't use it. Also, irrespective of your position, I would posit that Pirsig does not think that Quality-experience can be interchanged with subject-observation. (And this might be partly because I do not think the passage from Lila's Child that you furnished suggests that Pirsig thinks that, as you put it, "subject/object thinking is commensurate with subject/object metaphysics." That would entail exegesis on both our parts, which I will forgo presently.) Matt > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:58:00 -0600 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Hero's journey > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Matt Kundert > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Matt: > > I believe that Pirsig does not see the situation as you put it. You have > > conflated "SOM" with "subject/object interpretation." I would not do > > this. When Pirsig says the LC bit you speak of, I believe he's > > suggesting that subjects and objects can be redescribed from within > > the MoQ, which is what Dave and I have been after. I do not believe > > he is saying that common sense rests irrevocably on SOM. I also > > see no reason, irrespective of Pirsig, to think that common sense > > rests irrevocably on particular philosophical interpretation. > > Dan: > I assume we are all after staying within the framework of the MOQ. sdermn 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
