[MD] Static latching & faith

[david buchanan]

Scott and all MOQers:

Scott replied to the Northrop quotes from Ant:
I see nothing but a spinning of arguments to convince oneself that something 
that one is already convinced of can have the word 'empirical' attached to 
it.

dmb said to Scott:
...its hard to see how you could miss the point or otherwise fail to 
understand what "empirical" means here. Looking at the two quotes we see the 
use of terms and phrases such as "colors, sounds, odors, pleasurs, pains, 
aesthetic qualities, purely empirically given, immediately apprehended fact 
and sense immpressions." How could anyone fail to see how all of these refer 
to experience, to raw empirical data? And the terms and phrases refering to 
raw empirical experience are contrasted with CONCEPTS about "theoretically 
inferred objects" and "external material objects"

Scott repled:
I am not failing to see that. Where have I said they are not empirical? The 
question at hand is whether the metaphysical system called the MOQ is "pure 
empiricism".

dmb says:
Oh my God! You just said Northop's empircial claims were nothing but "spin", 
self-convincing arguements to "attach" empiricism to one's beliefs. And now 
you're asking "where" you denied it? You've got to be kidding!? And the 
"question at hand" is NOT "whether a metaphysical system" is "pure 
empiricism". That you put it that way only shows how thoroughly confused you 
are about the basic point. Metaphysical systems are not raw empirical data, 
they are full of concepts and theories. All a metaphyscial system can do is 
explain the raw empirical data in a coherent way, but that comes after the 
raw data and is to be distinguished from it. This is Ant's point. This is 
Northrop's point. This is Pirsig's point. This is my point. This is the 
point you don't get....

dmb had said:
...Within a SOM framework, the objects of material reality are supposed to 
be the cause of that raw
empirical data, but Northrop and Pirsig are saying that this is backwards.

Scott replied:
Fine. They are saying that it is backwards. Does that make it an empirical 
truth that it is backwards? No. It is a metaphysical claim. We call such 
claims metaphysical to distinguish them from empirical claims.

dmb says:
Huh? The point is that "material objects" are metaphysical, theoretical 
inferences. SOM, naive realism, common sense essentialism, the scientific 
world view, etc, all assume that experience is caused by the existence of 
subjects in an objective reality. This is the view that Pirsig and Northrop 
are overturning. Didn't I already say all this? Anyway, they are reversing 
our metaphysical assumptions about subject and objects. This then would be a 
metaphysical truth. And we say its "more empirical" because experience 
begins with the raw data, as described above by extracts from the quotes, 
instead of using those metaphysical assumptions as a starting point. But I 
already explained this, didn't I? In any case, I think your rejection of 
this reversal means your still working within a SOM framework. I think 
that's why you've got it backwards with respect to the MOQ. Like I said 
Pirsig and Northrop are overturning these materialist assumptions in favor 
of a more "radical empiricism", one that does not assume that experience 
depends upon pre-existing subjects in an objective physical reality.

Scott replied:
No I am not operating under those assumptions. I am only pointing out that 
rejecting those assumptions is not based on empirical data, since the 
empirical data is consistent with both accepting those assumptions and 
rejecting them.  ...I am only trying to point out that *all* metaphysical 
views go beyond the empirical to put together a theory.

dmb says:
Its really amazing how much you can confuse things in a single sentence. I'm 
looking at the middle sentence. Man, is that a whopper. Oh, let me count the 
ways. For starters, you contradict yourself by saying that the rejection is 
"not based on empirical data" before the comma and after the comma you say 
"the empirical data is consistant" with rejecting them. On top of that, 
Pirsig and Northrop aren't rejecting these assumptions so much pointing out 
that subjects and objects are "theoretically infered" from the raw empircal 
data. So, if you think their rejection of those assumptions is not based on 
empirical experience, then you really have no clue as to what they're 
saying. But I already accused you of missing the point, didn't I? I really 
love how you continue to miss the point even as you deny missing the 
point...

Scott said to dmb:
Where I have confused intellectual descriptions with raw empirical data? 
...I am questioning on what supposedly *empirical* basis Northrop has come 
up with the concept "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum". ....why did 
Northrop have to come up with a theory about it? Why does he have to tell us 
about it? I'm not saying his theory is wrong, just pointing out that it is a 
theory, not something we all know prior to theorizing, like we know what it 
is like to be in pain.

dmb replies:
Where? All over the place. That's what I've trying to explain. And didn't 
you JUST get done saying that the empirical data is "consistent" with either 
model? And now you're gonna ask me what data after you just refered to it 
yourself. And now you're gonna pretend that YOU are the one interested in 
distinquishing theories from the empirical data upon which they're based, as 
if Northrop and Pirsig were confused instead of you. Doesn't that just top 
it all? Wow! Anyone who reads your posts would certainly know what its like 
to be in pain - and that no theory. That's raw empircal truth, baby. Your 
posts nver fail to miss the point and are so full of contradictory 
non-sense, equivocatons and evasions that it actually hurts to read them.

All I can do now is sit back and wait to see how you'll fail to comprehend 
this time. Fortunately, I've decided to be amused, rather than frustrated, 
by your confusions.

Looking forward to it,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/