Hi Glenn:
Sorry to be tardy in replying to your posts. As you may have noted, I�ve
been busy trying to persuade those who say �there are no absolutes�
or �truth depends on context� that they commit philosophical and
logical hari kari.
PLATT: (previously)
Since science cannot touch the domain of values, and yet, as you
admit, we posses a sense of quality that is a genuine perception, it
appears something besides mind is missing from science�s
�universe,� leaving Pirsig a wide open field to explore. That he treads
on some scientistic toes while doing so should not come as a
surprise.
GLENN:
I'm glad you said "appears", because it could very well be that DQ is
not needed to explain why we sense quality as a genuine perception. It
could very well be that the brain creates a sense of quality. Or it could
be that the DQ idea is right, after all. It's just a bit odd that there isn't a
more lively discussion about this on moq.org.
I�m happy to see that you acknowledge that we possess �a sense of
quality.� If this sense is, as Pirsig claims, like our senses of sight,
hearing, taste, touch, etc., all of which inform us of what�s happening in
our environment, then it�s not unreasonable to conclude that �DQ� is
also part of the environment and not just something the brain creates.
GLENN:
Pirsig claims values are not created in the brain, but his reasoning is
merely that science hasn't found them there. If we're going to criticize
scientism for claiming God doesn't exist because scientists haven't
found God, shouldn't we criticize Pirsig equally for his claim?
Good point. But Pirsig�s reasoning goes far beyond just the fact that
science hasn�t found values in the brain. He wrote a whole book of
reasons. Anyway, science hasn�t found a lot of other stuff in the brain
either, like your belief that Pirsig hates science. All it has found is a
bunch of cells, a network of nerve synapses and some wavy lines on
an oscilloscope.
GLENN:
Pirsig writes about the inability of science to pin-point a location in the
brain where quality resides and then writes:
PIRSIG: (ch. 8)
Persons who know the history of science will recognize the sweet
smell of phlogiston here and the warm glow of the luminiferous ether,
two other scientific entities which were arrived at deductively and which
never showed up under the microscope or anywhere else. When
deduced entities are around for years and nobody finds them it is a
sign that the deductions have been made from false premises; that the
body of theory from which the deductions are made are wrong at some
fundamental level.
Ironically, DQ is also a deduced entity that has the same sweet smell
of phlogiston and warm glow of ether. DQ is a thing floating around the
universe (like the ether) having no properties (like the ether) that can be
detected by no instrument (like the ether). This seems pretty damning
to me but I can anticipate two weak protests about this:
1) DQ is empirical - experienced by people, whereas the ether was not.
Yes, but this is begging the question that the thing we experience as
quality is DQ, and not some epiphenomenal creation of the brain.
2) DQ does not pretend to be a scientific entity, so it does not have to
answer to the standards that would suggest it is fundamentally wrong.
This is a retreat which does nothing to improve the argument for DQ. It
just mystifies it.
How about the argument that if you posit DQ you get a fabulously better
explanation of experience than if you restrict yourself to brain
�epiphenomenons� which mean, in essence, �Oops.�?
GLENN:
Also, if you were impressed by Pirsig's appeal about the aesthetically
unpleasing position of the platypus in the biological taxonomy, then
shouldn't you be equally unpleased about the quality taxonomy. Here
we have a nice progression of values marching through the inorganic,
biological, social, and intellectual levels, which includes everything.
Everything, that is, except DQ. It's off on its own over here, an undefined
oddball, a lot like the platypus.
Except to �include everything� you have to include the unknown and the
inexplicable, something scientists as self-appointed Gods believe they
will eventually demystify with a TOE (Theory of Everything).
GLENN:
Finally, there's this business about DQ creating substance during
quality experiences. There's no empirical evidence for this, and it
contradicts science because a rock that you create and which you
claim to be several minutes old can be carbon-dated and shown to be
several million years old. Also, this idea of humans creating
substances like rocks on-the-fly contradicts another part of MOQ,
which states that the inorganic level evolved and pre-dated humans. In
this case either evolution is wrong or the creative power of DQ is not
true.
I love your assumption that DQ is creation of human imagination and
that experience is what emerges miraculously out of a bulb of nervous
tissue . It seems you are such a materialist that the very idea of a free-
floating mind must be squelched as the ravings of a maniac and that
anyone suggesting such a thing is a candidate for the looney farm.
Do you, can you, give credence to the reality of any phenomenon that is
immeasurable? Is �evidence� in your view restricted to mathematical
measurements, tables, graphs and statistics?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
