Hi Ken, Struan and Group:
Welcome back, Ken. I've missed your "mainstream" ideas. It's so easy
and great fun in philosophical discussions to frolic midst huge bubbles of
abstract words and ideas. I for one need your championing of logical
positivism to keep at least one toe on the practical, everyday ground of
life and living.
You mentioned that logical positivism loses its explanatory power prior to
the Big Bang and suggested that in Pirsig's metaphysical framework
there ought to be a mystical level before or underneath the Physical
(Inorganic).
I think you have a good point. In fact, I would extend your idea to include
as mysticism the "before-the-beginning� of most anything we can think of.
Already I'm in trouble because �before-the-beginning� is illogical. In fact,
the great weakness of logic is that it can't handle beginnings. It quickly
falls headlong into the black hole of infinite regress ... you know, "God
made the world. Who made God?� ad infinitum.
Nor can logic handle its own beginning. Although it's used to prove the
validity of arguments, it can't prove it's own validity. (Godel's Theorem).
Mathematics suffers a similar predicament. It's been pointed out that if
religion requires belief in unprovable truth, math is the only religion that
can prove its a religion."
Carrying this a step further, before-the-beginning of any argument or
viewpoint there are initial (usually hidden) premises which, more often
than not, are unprovable. For example, the premise of science that only
propositions that can be empirically verified are true cannot be
empirically verified. Likewise, the theory that all is energy and matter
consists of neither matter nor energy.
As Struan has correctly pointed out, "accepting any metaphysical
position is ultimately an act of faith." Further, when Struan says, "I do not
reject mysticism. I clearly affirm it as the fundamental �stuff� upon which
reason goes to work," I see a parallel to your implied position that
mysticism is the "stuff" on which the Big Bang went to work.
To tie this into the MoQ, I think Pirsig's "Dynamic front of edge of
experience" possesses the same sort of "mystic" characteristics as
"intuition" and "before the Big Bang." I think it's Pirsig's emphasis on
�before-the-beginning� of philosophical (and all other) intellectual patterns
that makes the MoQ "mystic."
Pirsig�s not the first mystic philosopher, of course. But I think he's the
first (with the possible exception of Plotinus) to name this mystic "stuff" a
"moral force� and then proceed to build an entire metaphysical edifice
around it.
Finally I would say, Ken, that as conjectures go, positing a moral force as
being prior to the Big Bang is not such a bad idea. For everything since
then, on balance, has been pretty good--including the fact that you and I
are still here to ponder these things and enjoy each other's company
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
