[MD] Static latching & faith

[kgt83dr at yahoo.com]

Hello Anthony,
  
<snip>
  
> The process of "finding [static] coherence in and giving meaning to the
> [Dynamic] multiple forces and relations that make up our lives" is perceived
> as a form of intellectual "static latching" in the MOQ.  As noted at the end
> of Chapter 11 of LILA:
>
> "A Dynamic advance is meaningless unless it can find some static pattern
> with which to protect itself from degeneration back to the conditions that
> existed before the advance was made.  Evolution can't be a continuous
> forward movement.  It must be a process of ratchet-like steps in which there
> is a Dynamic movement forward up some new incline and then, if the result
> looks successful, a static latching-on of the gain that has been made; then
> another Dynamic advance, then another static latch."
  
Reminds me of Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
Scientific advancement is a process in which, through the practice of normal
science, a paradigm shift is made, often by a single scientist.  For the shift to
take hold, the community of scientists must be persuaded to accept the new
normal science.  I found the following in, of all places, a Marxist website.
<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm>
  
     Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between
     competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of    
       community life. Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot
     be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal
     science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that
     paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate
     about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its
     own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defence. 
  
     The resulting circularity does not, of course, make the arguments wrong or
     even ineffectual. The man who premises a paradigm when arguing in its
     defence can nonetheless provide a clear exhibit of what scientific practice will
     be like for those who adopt the new view of nature. That exhibit can be
     immensely persuasive, often compellingly so. Yet, whatever its force, the
     status of the circular argument is only that of persuasion. It cannot be made
     logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step into
     the circle. The premises and values shared by the two parties to a debate
     over paradigms are not sufficiently extensive for that. As in political
     revolutions, so in paradigm choice – there is no standard higher than the
     assent of the relevant community. To discover how scientific revolutions are
     effected, we shall therefore have to examine not only the impact of nature and
     of logic, but also the techniques of persuasive argumentation effective within
     the quite special groups that constitute the community of scientists.
  
The bottom line is, according to Kuhn, there is a social constraint to scientific
advancement.  I can see how this applies to philosophy and the Metaphysics of
Quality as well.  Wouldn't the Metaphysics of Quality call this a static pattern of
social quality?
  
<snip>
  
> I think "static latching" is a better term to use than "faith" in this
> context because the latter term is being stretched by James Fowler to a
> point where it ends up meaning nearly anything.  As Pirsig notes using the
> example of the term "social":
>
> "There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of 'social' down into the
> biological with the assertion that, for example, ants are social, but I have
> argued that this extends the meaning to a point where it is useless for
> classification.  I said that even atoms can be called societies of electrons
> and protons.  And since everything is thus social, why even have the word?" 
> (Pirsig, 2003c, "A Critical Analysis of the MOQ" by Anthony McWatt, p.100)
  
Granted.  Fowler does stretch the traditional meaning of the word.  But not so far
that it ends up meaning nearly anything.  He says, "faith is a person's way of
seeing him - or herself  in relation to others against the background of shared
meaning and purpose."  He's talking about people's faith.
  
> As you should already be aware, in the MOQ, the term faith is also one that
> tends to be avoided because of its supernatural connotations (as illustrated
> in paragraphs 153-159 of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" - see below)
> and the MOQ's East Asian "see for yourself" heritage which rejects following
> some static authority's ideas on what "God"/Dynamic Quality wants or thinks.
  
You make my point.  You said, "[...] 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."  I said, "Yes, but without
a framework to make sense of it, there will be no meaning in the experience.  The
process by which unintelligible experiences become meaningful ones is what
James Fowler calls faith."
  
Would you say that the framework that allows you to find meaning in the initial 
  "experience/Quality" is the "MOQ's East Asian 'see for yourself' heritage?"
  
Thank you.
   
  
Kevin

			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.