Hi Mark, I snipped this section to see if we can get at the crux of the issue.
>> dmb says: >> In the preceding paragraph Pirsig explains that "he used this example >> because his chief questioners seemed to see things in terms of >> stimulus-response behavior theory". He says this sort of explanation was >> "easiest intellectual analog of pure Quality that people in our environment >> can understand". Also, despite the fact that he's explaining this in terms a >> behaviorist can understand, the substance of his claim strikes a direct hit >> against the myth of the given. Think about it. If every last bit of reality >> is an invented analog, then everything is constructed and nothing is given. > > Mark: > Yes, I agree with dmb, if I am interpreting correctly what he is > writing. Reality is not invented, it is realized in a manner which we > humans find useful. We are simply interpreters of the given. If > somebody interprets Spanish into English, this does not mean that the > English is not something similar to the Spanish. It does not somehow > make the English unreal. Our interpretation as presented through sq > is as direct as the DQ which is being interpreted. To say that such > analogue is somehow separate from the given is not correct. Our > ability to think is very real, as real as the hardness of steel. We > cannot say that we are "imagining" steel to be hard, or we once again > get lost in the distractions of logic. Dave And my understanding is that dmb, Wilbur, maybe Pirsig, and many other philosophers of this bent are saying that from a human POV there is no given per se, reality it is built up individually and collectively as time goes on. They start with "humans experience" as the most basic element. After the fact build up a collections of "what is experienced" that allows them to make claims about "reality," but these claims always fall short of "what truly is." They are only good in so far as they're useful, practical. Then from those experiences some can deduce that there must be "pure experience" or "dynamic quality" which is much more vast and complete than their limited experiences. At the end of this process many come to the conclusion that "reality" is best described by form of realism, often scientific realism. But there is no "reality" given prior to the experiencing and describing of those experiences. I understand why this may be a technically more correct description of what happens or has happened to human understanding. But I think a "given" universe with me an integral part of it is much less confusing. I can't imagine how to teach children in grade school the MoQ when people here, many with college degrees, can't come to any common agreement on what he says, let alone what he means. So I agree that Lila confuses more than clarifies. And ZatAoMM, while intriguing, makes claims,IMHO, that in the end will not and cannot be verified. Very similar, IMHO, to the God hypothesis. Dave 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
