[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

> I believe I've about exhausted my Much Ado About Nothingness.  How about
> you?  Is your Dance of the Muslim Veils over yet?

Just about I think. There are a still a few hangers-on defending 
barbaric Islamic law and practices.

> Actually Nothingness is an engaging topic.  I remember watching those
> first Seinfeld episodes in which the cast tried to sell a show "about
> nothing". It turned out to be the most popular sitcom on TV for seven
> years running, I think.

Yes, Seinfeld was a brilliant comedy. Raymond is equally about nothing, 
but equally as good. I think it has a lot to do with the harmony  
between individual cast members. When they try to go off and do it 
alone in another sitcom, they fail. Funny how that works. Nobody seems 
to know the formula. Otherwise, very show would be a hit.

> Micah made the point yesterday that Infinity and Nothingness are "mental
> concepts" that don't exist in reality.  Maybe not.  But, then what DOES
> exist in a reality where EVERYTHING is a mental concept? 

We part company on that mental concept. There is a distinct difference 
between direct experience and symbols of direct experience which 
comprise mental concepts. As William James put it, "A bill of fare with 
a real raisin on it instead of the word 'raisin,' at least be a 
commencement of reality." In other words, there's a big difference 
between a menu in hand and food on the table. If you mind can't tell 
the difference, your stomach can.   

> That's really
> the ontology that Pirsig has presented to us, except that he goes one
> step further and says that Mind is in Quality.  (When I commented to
> Marsha that, for Pirsig, Morality is innate in the universe, I was
> quickly corrected by Gav who said "the universe is innate in Morality." 
> Yet, I distinctly remember expressing doubts when you presented that
> concept to me.)

Apparently Pirsig is as much an idealist as you are although I'm never 
know exactly where he stands. On the one hand he acknowledges the 
difference between intellect (manipulation of symbols) and pure 
experience (prior to intellectualization.) On the other he intimates 
what isn't experienced doesn't exist. As you know, this raised the 
question, "Do atoms experience." Pirsig's answer is a rather 
unbelievable (to the modern ear), "Yes." 

> Earlier today, David made the following statement:
> > My experiences of intelligence beyond myself
> > make me feel that this intelligence goes beyond
> > the individual but it is as much involved in a journey
> > and an exploration as we are.
> 
> Now I'm totally confused!  I don't how what he's experiencing "beyond
> himself", but this kind of thinking extricates Intelligence from man and
> places it in a realm of its own -- merges it with the collective
> Intellect, I suppose.  I confess to finding such assertions
> incomprehensible, as I always believed it was man himself who possessed
> the intellect and did all the thinking.  This is what happens when you
> attribute human functions to the objective world.  I think we might all
> be less confused if we went Rand's way and posited everything as
> Objective.  Then, perhaps, we could gradually work our way back to what
> is essentially non-objective, like Quality or Value.

As you know, I was convinced by the British astronomer David Darling 
that consciousness is something in the environment that the brain taps 
into, like lungs tap into air and other organs of the body tap into or 
respond to what's outside the skin. This doesn't mean consciousness is 
a collective. Rather it's a singular whole, like space. That concept 
led me a belief in panexperientialism, described in a paper I've 
referenced before.  As for Quality being non-objective, Pirsig says, 
"Wrong." Quality comes prior to notions of subjects and objects.

> All this meandering is leading up to an idea I'd like to try on you. 
> You are arguably the most articulate person here, and you have indicated
> an interest in my philosophy, provided that it could be expounded in
> "plain English".

Flattery will get you anywhere. And yes, I'm interested in your 
philosophy as I am interested in anyone who has new and different 
ideas, but whose feet are firmly planted on terra firma. Pirsig's 
philosophy certainly qualifies as does your Essentialism, except for 
several caveats as expressed above. 

> It would benefit me considerably, and I would be honored, to initiate a
> dialogue with you toward that objective.  It could provide some quotable
> material for my "hungry" Forum Page, clear my thinking for a simpler
> exposition of Essentialism, and (now that it is no longer foreign to the
> MoQ regulars) possibly trigger some insights on the contested
> fundamentals of Mr. Pirsig's philosophy.  It would also give you the
> chance to play devil's advocate whenever you saw the need and reproach
> me when I become boring.  (I need this feedback, too!)  The best part of
> my proposition is that our exchanges could be frequent or sparse,
> depending on how involved we are in other ongoing discussions or whether
> we feel like talking on a particular day.
> 
> Does this appeal to you at all, Platt?   Is it something you'd prefer to
> do off-line?   Or is it something you'd prefer not to do?  (I won't be
> offended by your answer.)

Yes, it appeals to me, and the honor would be mine. But be forewarned 
1) that we have perhaps incompatible views on the nature of existence, 
2) that I like to examine premises as much as conclusions, and 3) that 
agreement on definitions is absolutely essential to mutual 
understanding. Finally, I will be critical of expressions that I think 
a reasonably intelligent high school sophomore would find strange. For 
example, the word "negate" will have to go. Also I favor simple 
declarative sentences. As for nothingness, if the numerical zero 
doesn't express it's meaning as well as anything, then I'm afraid we're 
stuck before we begin. 

With that in mind, let us proceed (or not) as you've described, 
informally, as the spirit moves us.

Warm regards,
Platt
   
P.S. Since this is a site devoted to Pirsig's MOQ, I think it's 
incumbent on us to relate your philosophy to his as much as possible, 
hopefully to the explication of both.