[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Ham Priday]

Case --



> The MoQ like James and Dewey just skip the TITs.
> Everything Pirsig talks about is post TITs. This does not
> make it anathema just irrelevant. There is in none of this
> any need to talk about absolute or immutable or
> undifferentiated. These are your own flights of fantasy.

I see Essence as an either/or proposition.  Either the "things themselves"
are essence(s) or essence is something else.  If TITs are "irrelevant", what
is their essence?  If you don't believe in Essence, then why continue to
look for it in the experiential world?

> There is no reason to suppose that whatever the source
> is that it is still around or that there was only one or
> that we have any business saying anything about it.

"Still around" is a temporal qualification that applies only to finite
space/time existence.  Essence is not affected by the boundaries and
conditions of finitude.  You seem to have an aversion to the idea of an
absolute reality, an uncreated source, which restricts your metaphysical
understanding to the physical world.  Did Pirsig "have no business"
proposing a universe based on Quality?  There was no empirical reason to
suppose it.  Is it not the "business" of Philosophy to hypothesize theories
having to do with metaphysical reality?

> To the extent that our theories and observations result in
> smaller and smaller degree of rounding error, they are
> meaningful and useful. Taking that rounding error and
> erecting a fortress of made up verbiage around it does
> nothing to further our understanding it just makes us
> feel important.

Your first statement relates to the quantitative aspects of the objective
world -- the numerical value of Pi, the orbit of Mars, the speed of light,
the irreducible unit of matter.  That is the province of scientific
investigation.  The philosopher does not attack empirical knowledge or the
scientific approach; his specialty is discerning the reality beyond the
physical world. And, yes, it is largely intuitive and hypothetical.  But you
have no more reason to demean it than the philosopher does to demean
Science.

> Pirsig does not eliminate the subjective factor;
> he says that it emerges and is inferred from experience
> in the same way the objects are inferred from
> experience. He would say the inverse of what you claim;
> that Experience is a necessary contingency for subjects
> and objects.

The logic of this assertion eludes me.  Since there is no experience without
a subject, I do not see how experience can be a contingency for subjects and
objects.  The actuality "being-aware" is contingent upon beingness and
awareness.  This is the self/other dichotomy.

> Biological systems require only an inorganic source.

Interesting.  Do you have that on good faith, or on some authoritative
source?

> I am a being. The nature of my being is an open question.

It certainly appears to be.

> Your fixation on the absolute and on the ultimate is misguided.
> I sincerely hope there is no end to the relationships we can find.
> The notion that we are in this continuum between zero and
> infinity is what it is all about.

You seem to thrive on circularity and the infinite regression of causes.
One might say you suffer from the "merry-go-round" syndrome.  Better grab
the brass rail before you get dizzy and fall off!

Regards,
Ham