[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Joseph Maurer]

On Monday 27 November 2006 7:09 PM Case writes:

<snip>

I think Kant in his pre-everything-interesting sort of way, is talking about
the biological functions inherent in our nature. So I would put him the same
camp as Jung and Freud attempting to identify the structure of thought from
the inside.

Kant was attempting to resolve the dualism of his time which was essentially
SoM. The Rationalist held that Subjects are the fundamental stuff.
Empiricists claimed knowledge is OF Objects known through the senses. Kant
resolved the dualism by claiming that while we do have senses we format
their input. This act of formatting or perception is a how we construct
reality. He claims on the one hand that all we can really know about is what
we can format but that something unknowable is being formatted.
It seems to me what Pirsig is after is this formatting process. Experience
is where sensation arrives and is processed. Out of this process come
subjects and objects, in fact all distinction. Experience is where the
friction is. It is reality smeared. Pasta shapes in six dimensions. Leave it
to a German to make that seem boring and ugly.

<snip>

Hi Case and all,

Thanks to Horse and Ant for their superb endeavors for the MOQ.

Case, I love the way you describe experience.

>From Rodney Collins: "One of the main characteristics of modern thought is a 
contradiction between the way a man regards the external world, outside 
himself, and the way he regards the internal world, inside himself.

"As regards the external world, he has never been more objective, more 
convinced of the universal application of "laws", expressible by formulae 
and consistently measurable in their effects. In this field, any belief 
which throws doubt on the principle of measurability, for example, any 
belief in intelligence or consciousness belonging to beings greater in scale 
than man, is in danger of being regarded as superstition.

"As regards his internal world, on the other hand, man has rarely been more 
subjective, more convinced of the special validity of his every whim, 
imagination, hope and fear, and less willing to admit that his inner world 
is subject to any laws whatsoever. The greater part of modern psychology, 
and especially psycho-analysis, has been based on this subjectivity. And in 
this field, it is precisely the belief in laws and measurability-for 
example, belief that much of human psychology is the result of the 
calculable interplay of types, or belief that man's inner world is subject 
to laws similar to those governing the astronomical or microscopic 
worlds-which is called superstition." The Theory of Celestial Influence by 
Rodney Collins 1950 p. xiv.

The history of thought that I studied in Scholastic Philosophy started with 
a body/soul split. The body had the senses, and the soul had the mind and 
will.

For knowledge Plato argued for a world of ideas which the mind was able to 
access. The good, arete, which the will accessed was a much more immediate 
experience and at a higher level.

Aristotle, keeping the body/soul split, proposed abstraction as a theory for 
knowledge. Actual existence for reality existing outside the mind, an 
intentional existence given to an abstraction, essence, by the mind from an 
image created from the senses for knowledge and words for communication. 
Aristotle held that you can't want something until you know what it is, so 
truth-abstraction is superior to good-will.

Aquinas followed Aristotle's metaphysics, but at the end of his life 
proclaimed that everything he had written was as straw.

Plotinus, founder of neoplatonism, proposed direct mystical connection to 
the world of ideas, The body/soul split was secure.

Kant also used a body/soul split, but claimed the ding an sich was 
unknowable because the mind had its own structure. He avoided abstraction, 
and the world of ideas and opened the door for direct experience. He still 
falls under the S= mind/will, O= body Metaphysics, with his emphasis on the 
categorical imperative.

IMO Pirsig's genius was in seeing that Kant was on the right track with 
structure, but that he wasn't ruthless enough in destroying a body/soul 
split. Kant unnecessarily kept a body/soul split. She is only one organism! 
All is experience. She is not divided. The Categorical Imperative becomes 
evolutionary dimensions of existence, morality.

I go back in history to see how others view existence. Esoteric literature 
describes a law of seven. IMO Existence along with everything else conforms 
to that law. The duality of a body/soul split with real existence and 
intentional existence SOM is incomplete and misleading. I looked back on my 
studies of esoteric literature of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicol, and Collins 
to see how others have viewed existence, and cobble existence and a law of 
seven together.

IMO There are dimensions in existence, a moral order. It seems that time is 
necessary for evolution to produce an individual in a new order of 
existence. Morality is the necessity that when a new order evolves from the 
old it cannot destroy the old and continue to exist, there are too many 
interconnected parts. Individuals can destroy what they want to, but not 
morally. Destruction of the environment is morally wrong. It is not too 
clever either. Individuals belong to an order, and it is hard to distinguish 
which order because they are so complex. One foot here, a hand there, but 
the center of gravity places them in one of the seven orders. If one order 
of existence collapses, all orders above it collapse, and evolution is 
forced to start from the last latch. Time is involved, but...... Three steps 
forward, one step backward. DQ is undefined and existing in all orders, a 
must be. MOQ

A question: what does it mean "that you get nothing for nothing, and damn 
little for two cents?" Payment is tied to evolution.

S/O is a description of cosmic evolution mechanical O, and proprietary 
awareness evolution S. IMO Ham proposes that a shock, nothingness, is 
necessary for PA evolution. Proprietary awareness with another shock, 
payment, can consciously evolve to enlightenment. Cosmic evolution O, 
proprietary awareness S shocked by payment evolves to conscious 
enlightenment, SOE.

Joe



> First can we please quit talking about a priori motorcycles. This is the
> gnawing little irritation that got me started on this. If by "a priori
> motorcycle" Pirsig just means "Kant's Scooter", fine. I am willing to cut
> him some slack, artistic license. But I can find nothing that would 
> indicate
> this is a correct what to use the term in an explanation of Kant. The
> fundamental concepts which Kant calls a priori are like space and time. We
> can not have an idea that does not include or imply space and time. This 
> is
> why cosmology gives us fits. It is impossible to imagine what there was
> before the beginning. Or the edge of space, beyond which there is no more
> spaces.
>
> I think Kant in his pre-everything-interesting sort of way, is talking 
> about
> the biological functions inherent in our nature. So I would put him the 
> same
> camp as Jung and Freud attempting to identify the structure of thought 
> from
> the inside.
>
> Kant was attempting to resolve the dualism of his time which was 
> essentially
> SoM. The Rationalist held that Subjects are the fundamental stuff.
> Empiricists claimed knowledge is OF Objects known through the senses. Kant
> resolved the dualism by claiming that while we do have senses we format
> their input. This act of formatting or perception is a how we construct
> reality. He claims on the one hand that all we can really know about is 
> what
> we can format but that something unknowable is being formatted.
>
> It seems to me what Pirsig is after is this formatting process. Experience
> is where sensation arrives and is processed. Out of this process come
> subjects and objects, in fact all distinction. Experience is where the
> friction is. It is reality smeared. Pasta shapes in six dimensions. Leave 
> it
> to a German to make that seem boring and ugly.
>
> Here is how I described it to Scott Roberts last year:
>
> "I would say that the brain is a tabla rasa
> except that unlike slate it's texture is not always smooth or even flat.
> In places you have to use a special marker.
> If the light is not just right, in some places you can't read what's
> written.
> Some places are self luminescent.
> It almost always, changes form when you stimulate it.
>
> But it starts out clean."
>
> I think Pirsig is just making a bobber out of Kant's scooter. Where Kant
> sees a priori moral laws Pirsig sees Value. That "know it when you see it"
> groove. Kant's idea that duty and conscience are part of human nature seem
> true enough to me. In large measure I share Kant's world view but I am 
> open
> to the idea that these might not be central to someone with a different
> world view. But I think Jung and Campbell were looking for structures of
> thought. That is, the framework inherent in the nature of the tabla rasa.
>
> What this leaves out altogether is the things in themselves. Pirsig may as
> you say dismiss these, I think he assumes them. But I can not escape the
> idea that my sensations are OF something. That in Maya there is a dream OF
> something. That although reality could be shaped in other ways it is 
> always
> shaped some way and this is a shape OF something.
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/