Hello everyone On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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,
Hi Matt My cat Chomsky jumped on my keyboard at an inopportune time while I was fixing a cup of tea. It isn't his fault... he is blind in one eye and can't see out of the other... a metaphor for something I am sure... Matt: > 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.) Dan: Now... see... I have problems not responding to something like this... and yes I can respond to the whole post holistically as you request but this is silly. I thought we moved past the silliness that characterized some of the other contributors to this thread... Matt: 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). Dan: > > > > 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. Dan: I did offer an explanation centered around high quality social patterns (NYC) vs. low quality social patterns (Don's dog dish, unicorns) and how the former is founded upon overwhelming circumstantial evidence while the latter is founded upon hypotheses contrary to fact. I don't know of a better explanation at the moment nor have I heard you offer one other than the concept of object permanence... imagination, albeit rigorous imagination. I'm not at the end of my rope though I can sense your exasperation and any time you wish to quit that's fine. I do this as a diversion... for fun... and I appreciate you taking your time here as well. I understand that reality is in part a set of evolving ideas I'll never get quite right. I know in advance anything I write here is probably wrong in the larger sense. It doesn't stop me from trying though. It is no doubt a fool's errand. > >Matt: > > 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.) Dan: I suppose my "style" of responding can be off-putting to some and apparently it is to you. For the record, I do read through the entire post several times, taking some time to ponder what has been said, and then re-read the post several more times before I even think of responding. I'll comment where comments seem called for rather than writing a book (or at least a long essay) at the beginning or end of the post where I might garble what has been said into what I think has been said and not what has actually been written. You say you want to know what I think... I think dictionary definitions are good for precision and if we don't follow them, then anything goes. For instance, you mentioned something about imagination and how it could mean NYC or dog dishes or unicorns. You're right... but look: im·ag·i·na·tion [ih-maj-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses. 2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts. 3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy ( def. 2 ) . 4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one. 5. ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness: a job that requires imagination. Dan comments: There a number of definitions, some pointing to high quality ideas and some to low quality ideas. Unicorns refers to #4 I should think while dog dishes and NYC refers to #1. I believe I could go through the list of words you proffered and do the same type of identification process with them as well. It appears (to me) that you're saying all imagination is of equal value... according to the dictionary, it isn't. There is a sense of high quality imagination (#1) like the concept of object permanence and a sense of low quality imagination (#4) like concepts of unicorns and fairy dust. Be that as it may... there were a good many points I would have liked to have responded to in your posting but I've stayed myself (as best I could) and will instead try and reply "holistically" as per your request. First, I don't take your responses as elitism. I'm not sure why we're engaging in this discussion. You asked a question and I attempted an answer. It seemed to grow from there. I have no philosophical leanings to speak of other than what I know of the Metaphysics of Quality. I know you and dmb are better versed in philosophy and so might make better opponents (if that's what we are) in a discussion. So perhaps you might better find what you're looking for by engaging him and Steve rather than continuing to engage me. I'm a story teller. My interest in Robert Pirsig has more to do with the story side than the philosophical side although some of each quite naturally bleeds into the other. I dissect books that I read and movies that I see in order to see how they're put together. That isn't to say I don't enjoy reading books and watching movies... I do. But I tend to feel a compulsion to delve deeper than the superficial. I enjoy recognizing the symbolic themes and the way the authors and screenwriters have woven their character webs and constructed their scenes and I ask myself why this works better than that. I have little to draw upon so far as a formal education. Most of my more profound insights arise of their own accord and not of any result of my own work, although that is not strictly true either. Most of the time, I have no idea what I'm doing. I do a little something and look back on it and say to myself, that seems okay... maybe I can do a little more. If along the way I get stuck on something I'll sit quietly until the monkeys chasing each other through my mind have stilled and all of a sudden I know how to proceed. I tend to doubt that is taught in any university yet it is all I have to fall back upon. You say you want to understand where I'm coming from. I assume that means you don't understand what it is I am getting at. You sense inconsistencies in my words and it confuses you. You're probably used to reading learned philosophers who are certain of themselves and of their words. I suspect in the end all that certainty will prove to be little more than a mirage so at least I'm being honest when I say that I don't see how I am being inconsistent with the MOQ as painted by Robert Pirsig but it is entirely possible that I am. I guess one thing that bothers me just a little is that (I feel) I understand you and dmb and where you're both coming from and yet I find I don't altogether agree with either of you when it comes to the MOQ. I tell myself that I must not understand you like I think I do but the further our discussions progress the more intense the feeling grows. I want to explain myself to both of you in a better way so that you both might see what I'm saying but I get the impression it would take years of formal education on my part to do that and by then I would be so thoroughly indoctrinated that I would no longer see things the way I see them now. So maybe I am best seen as merely an uneducated fellow who doesn't know any better. Anyway, I am working on a wonderful story about a girl who is abused by her father and who grows up to be a lost soul, until she finally meets a couple someones who show her the way even though their time together is far more limited than they all would like... ... back at it then... And I thank you for your time, Dan 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
