ROGER ADDS MORE TO ROBERT'S PLATE Rob, thanks for the great arguments. Let me know your thoughts on my thoughts. ROGER: The essence of Robert's argument is that Cartesian dualism is different and separate from SOM. The Cartesian duality is basically that "thinking stuff" is separate "physical stuff" such as the body and the external world. The achilles heel of Cartesian reality is interaction. How can immaterial mind and material matter interact? In general, 20th Century philosophers have tended to dismiss the Cartesian solution, instead replacing it with monistic materialism...... Where all is matter, and mental events are explained by material phenomenon. The Cartesian duality (from what I know of philosophy) is pretty much dismissed today as a 300 year old wrong turn based on a quaint, incomplete Newtonian scientific reality. If Pirsig had attacked Cartesian duality, he would have indeed been attacking a Straw Man. However, if it works for you, Robert, great! I am not suggesting that you shouldn't believe in something because modern philosophers don't. You probably do need to get to work on the interaction platypus though (may I suggest you read Liebnitz or Hobbes for some inspiration along these lines). The MOQ's Radical Empiricism is a monism that states that experience is primary. All else, including mind and matter are abstractions from this primary reality. They are great high quality abstractions, but assumptions just the same. The benefit to the MOQ is that the only known monistic structure of reality is that which is empirically verified. Reality is empiricism itself. All other models of reality are truths with relative strengths and weaknesses. The MOQ doesn't so much reject any of the other models.... It transcends them The MOQ is not so much anti-Cartesian, it is post-Cartesian. By dividing experience itself up, The MOQ can explain and connect matter and mind by defining them as different conceptualized forms of experience. Discrete patterns connected by biological and social experience. The MOQ assumes nothing but empiricism itself and then weaves patterns of experience to form the intellectual level that then abstracts the other levels and itself. The MOQ even transcends itself by explaining that even it is just one particular model of reality that is only the highest quality pattern until a better model comes along. The MOQ never asks us to ignore parts of reality (John and you seem to share this gross misinterpretation) It states that the other models of the last 2000 years have done just this. Mind and matter and idealism and "all is energy" are all considered viable TRUTHS within the MOQ. The MOQ is not considered a truth in the other metaphysics. So, which passes your Krishnamirta test??? Which is ignoring truth? ROBERT: Now to the levels....First, I don't see a physical/biological split within experience. For example, when a tree "defies" gravity by growing upwards, it can be explained by photosynthesis which is a physical theory of matter and energy. It is only behavior of *conscious* beings that seem to violate physics as their choices appear arbitrary from a physics viewpoint. Cartesian dualism could possibly explain the conundrum by directly by incorporating "will" into consciousness. This is complicated, but it is more intuitive that my "will" violates physics than biology. ROGER: First of all, physics isn't violated by biology. It is redefined. Biology is not unnatural, it is nature itself. It expands "inorganic" nature and develops it into new patterns. That is to me what the levels represent. They represent not "things", but value patterns, or going back to earlier terms, to patterns of experience. Biology doesn't violate pysical laws, it transcends and redefines them. ROBERT: As far as the morality part, I have to admit that life is better than nonlife. This is something I knew before Pirsig, and due to the explanation above, I don't think he proved it. ROGER: I think Pirsig would agree. His metaphysics doesn't contradict this, but it is not the first TRUTH to state as much. ROBERT: Second, I don't really see a biological/social split within my experiences. I think you explained that our social values are emotional and our biological values are of the senses. But William James also correctly explained that there is no fundamental difference between emotion and sensory perception. Anger, for example, is a sensory perception just like hunger or thirst. Hunger is a feeling in the stomach, whereas anger is a feeling in the chest, clenched muscles, breath, blood pressure, etc. Anger, consequently, might be more social then hunger, but it is as fundamentally biological as is hunger, which --as explained above -- is fundamentally physical. Emotions don't have to be social. From what I remember from psychology, neurosurgeons can stimulate certain emotions just as they can stimulate certain sensations. The mystery is why does anger -- which can be *physically* observed in the body -- feel like anger? Similar to the MOQ, the answer given by Cartesian dualism says reality is primarily experienced, which can't be further explained. Anger is anger. Unlike the MOQ, there is not the confused split between anger and hunger. ROGER: Here I believe you attack not Pirsig, but Bodvar. In fact, to be honest I think you are 100% right. The "emotions are social" argument seems patently absurd to me, and contrary to everything I know and experience. The two are connected and interwoven, but biological stimulus/response and emotion are synonymous, and primary placement of this defining biological value into the social level seems odd. ROBERT: As far as the morality part, I again have to give in that many lives are more important than one life. Again, I don't think this is proven by the levels, but intuitive from my experiences. ROGER: Okay. ROBERT: Third, I don't really see a social/intellectual split. I find this part of the MOQ very confused. My confusion started a long time ago when I could not think of one hypothetical example where knowledge of the levels could help me make more moral decisions-- given I was open-minded and sensitive to reality. (This was in contrast to the part of the MOQ which stated that knowledge begins with experience.. That helped a lot, because it justified what I had learned from Eastern philosophy.) To get though my confusion, I asked people on the list where the knowledge of this split has changed their opinions on moral issues not discussed by Pirsig. It seemed that one could only retroactively choose the level fit, *after* his/her experiences told him/her right and wrong. After weeks of debate, I got Roger to admit that the levels -- by themselves --had not directly changed his opinions on anything -- he relies on experience but uses the MOQ as a table to sort his experiences out. Last month Diane said that we ought to understand the levels but then transcend them. ROGER: What does this have to do with the social/intellectual split? Your attack is on the need for levels at all, not on the Social/Intellectual moral code. Again though, Pirsig does not reject intellectual patterns, he transcends them. He provides intellectual models only to warn us that Dynamic Experience is morally superior. ROBERT: With no examples, it is no wonder I was confused understanding the levels! I wanted to test the levels against my experiences and intuition, but the levels require experiences and intuition. So why not drop them altogether and go where I was before --with my experiences and intuition! ROGER: Pirsig does not exclude, he includes and transcends. But Then Again......... Roger 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]
