[MD] Language Games (was Theatre and Definitions)

[Ant McWatt]

Anthony said April 13th:

The brief answer is that Northrop was suggesting – especially in an 
increasingly smaller world where mutual understanding is more important than 
ever – that we should read both the “Tao Te Ching” and “Hamlet”.   Moreover, 
in his better moments, Northrop recognised that the East Asian and Western 
traditions were both equally as valuable as each other and, as such, he was 
concerned with balancing the Dynamic (emphasised by the East Asian tradition 
and the fine arts) with the static (emphasised by the West and science) on 
an equal basis.  The intuition/postulation distinction of Northrop’s also 
has value because it clarifies the relationship between the two primary 
components of reality (i.e. the indeterminate Dynamic/ aesthetic and the 
determinate static/ theoretical) under a single conceptual framework.

As you rightly implied, as pragmatists we have to decide our priorities as 
“there isn’t enough time in the world to try every” activity out there that 
promises “to enrich my life and change me for the better”.  The central 
concern of Northrop’s of achieving world peace and understanding in a world 
full of nuclear weapons and a diminishing oil supply seems an important 
pragmatic priority to me as there is no use in there being first class 
universities or libraries containing the best works of Wittgenstein, 
Davidson or Dennett etc if they are destroyed in an act of war or there is 
no-one around to use them!

Matt replied April 13th:

“I’m not convinced [that the intuition/postulation distinction of 
Northrop’s] does have value.  I still see it as an unnecessary reification 
of two standpoints, the Dynamic and the static.  When we reach the point in 
which we are liable to say that the Dynamic and the static interpenetrate 
each other, that the Dynamic and static are two standpoints but we shouldn’t 
take them as literally divorced from each other, then I think we should be 
comfortable in denying a static distinction between two components of 
reality because anything we say at this level of generality, where 
everything becomes an interpenetrating mush, distinctions become 
dichotomous, just like the subject/object distinction.”

--------------------------------------------

Matt,

Firstly, you’re confusing Northrop’s static conceptual system with the 
Dynamic viewpoint of the MOQ here.  The point of the “river and mountains” 
Zen analogy was to point out that (as with _all_ analytic philosophy) 
Northrop’s conceptual scheme is made from a static, ‘mountains are mountains 
and rivers are rivers’ view (though, of course, the MOQ has - in addition - 
a Dynamic viewpoint).  If you think we should be comfortable in denying the 
static distinctions of Northrop simply because anything we say at the 
Dynamic level of generality entails that “everything becomes an 
interpenetrating mush” then we should also be comfortable in throwing out 
all of analytic Western philosophy as well.

However, seriously, the Dynamic level of generality does not mean that 
“everything becomes an interpenetrating mush”.  Rather it is the view that 
assumes that everything static is a manifestation of the Dynamic i.e.

“From [the static] everyday world Dynamic Quality is like an undefined 
perfume which attaches in different ways to the objects of the world.  In 
the [Dynamic] world of the Buddhas the perfume is the whole thing and 
objects are merely transitory patterns of the perfume.”  (Pirsig to McWatt, 
December 1994)

Matt also said April 13th:

“I agree with all the practical things you said about bringing the East and 
West together, but I can’t see how a distinction between intuition and 
postulation plays any role in doing it.  I don’t know what it’s for, and I 
bet anything we might want it for can be better played by other 
distinctions.”

As mentioned previously, the rehabilitation of the indeterminate aesthetic 
component in Western philosophy is important because it promotes a 
‘compassionate fellow-feeling not merely for other men but for all nature’s 
creatures, and serving to keep them more at peace with each other’.   
Moreover, the distinction between concepts by intuition and postulation 
plays the role of bringing the East and West together because concepts by 
intuition apply to the aesthetic nature of human beings (which is given 
priority by East Asian philosophy) while concepts by postulation apply to 
the theoretic nature of human beings (given emphasis by Western philosophy). 
  Northrop thought the balancing of these differences of emphasis was the 
most important division in human culture on the global perspective.  As 
such, (at least according to Northrop!) it is the most critical division to 
resolve in the project of international understanding and world peace.  You 
should also note that Northrop’s concepts by intuition and postulation (like 
the MOQ) provides a possible solution to the communication breach (as noted 
by C.P. Snow) within Western culture between the arts and sciences.  
Consequently, as pragmatists I think we should use Northrop’s constructive 
distinction (while keeping in mind your concern about reification).

Another reason for using Northrop’s distinction is that its wider 
philosophical viewpoint raises problems in how some Western philosophers are 
discussing consciousness.  To return to my original concern with Daniel 
Dennett, he seems to be pretending that the aesthetic doesn’t exist or that 
it is _just_ a derivative of the theoretical (e.g. page 25 of “Consciousness 
Explained”: “How can living physical bodies in the [Cartesian] physical 
world produce [Cartesian mental] phenomena [such as perceptions and 
sensations]?  That is the mystery?” – and, of course, the answer is physical 
bodies in the [Cartesian] physical world _can’t_ logically produce 
[Cartesian mental] phenomena).

However, we shouldn’t be too surprized by these type of SOM questions or 
assumptions as Dennett is an unwary product of his culture and has inherited 
the typical bias of Western philosophers (observed by Northrop) that the 
aesthetic is a derivative of the theoretical.  The logically correct view, 
as Pirsig notes, is that ideas such as brains are just theoretical 
constructs (derived from the aesthetic continuum) that appeared at some 
point in human history as high quality ideas i.e. experience/Quality 
logically comes first, ideas about this experience/Quality (such as physics, 
brains, chairs, the self, Sellar’s lecture “Myth of the Given” etc) come 
second.

Finally, I know Ian G thinks Dennett’s later books are an improvement on 
“Consciousness Explained” (and that might well be), but this viewpoint isn’t 
shared by Doug Renselle at Quantonics.com.  If you’re interested, Doug has 
recently written some material about Dennett from an MOQ perspective and 
thinks Dennett’s work up until 2006 (other than his article in “The 
Chronicle Review”) as still remaining in the SOM quagmire.  For instance:

“Having studied Dennett’s 1995 ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’, DDI, sparingly, we 
come to an assessment, albeit tentative: Dennett is an analytic, 
dialectical, mechanical SOMite living in SOM’s… classical causal concrete 
canonic ‘reality’.  Darwin too! Darwin’s natural selection is seen 
algorithmically as an ideal machine, predicable in all its nuances. Ugh! As 
we recall we have similar ‘feelings’ regarding Hofstadter and Penrose. We 
simply cannot afford to spend our valuable time reading these people. As a 
recommendation, we suggest you use Dennett’s DDI bibliography as a means of 
deciding ‘what not to read’ excepting perhaps William James and 
Wittgenstein…”

“Dennett’s DDI essentially agrees with fundamental ‘Christian’s’ 
(un)Intelligent Design. Dennett endlessly sings praises of ‘design.’ Ugh! He 
apparently fails to grasp an essential: design precludes selection!!! Design 
has no means of anticipating emergent novel (i.e., classically 
zero-probability) change while selection thrives on it …  Let’s see how 
Dennett’s 2003 ‘Freedom Evolves’ weathers...  Seriously, Doug is now 
regretting he bought those two Dennett texts. Dennett’s ‘Freedom Evolves’ is 
just more naïve dialectical pabulum [i.e. insipid intellectual nourishment]. 
Ugh!”

“Yet his article in ‘The Chronicle Review’ is a great read. Perhaps Dennett 
has evolved massively since 2003? Doubt it. Guess we’ll have to wait till 
February to (try to) read his latest effort.”

(http://www.quantonics.com/Level_3_TQS_2006_News_Mar.html)

I’m not sure Doug is always the easiest person to understand (with all that 
quantonics jargon he uses) but with that endorsement of his, I’ll try to get 
round to reading Dennett’s article in ‘The Chronicle Review’ to see the 
development, if any, from “Consciousness Explained”.

BTW, have you reached Wig City yet?

Best wishes,

Anthony.


www.robertpirsig.org



.

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview