[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Ham Priday]

Chin --


> I have to be honest with you, and tell you I haven’t
> read much in the scientific journals, but have read
> a little in the Journal of Finance, and it appears to me
> those who write in these journals are generally
> professors. The professors do seem to me to be
> a bit biased toward a particular theory, which of
> course by Pirsig’s explanation of science might
> make them a fraud. This may be a bit ideological.

Academic preference for certain theories isn't a "fraud", but it won't give
the student a balanced perspective, either.  Over 80% of the English,
History and Social Studies professors at American universities admit to
being progressive liberals.  And we wonder why journalists and sociologists
present us with a biased view of politics and world affairs!

> Would “Fact” not be a strong word in science?
> Do the theories not sometimes get treated as facts?
> One in particular I have had a little trouble with is
> Efficient Market Theory, which is treated as a fact,
> but most I have discussed this with pretty much end
> up returning to EMT is true because EMT says it is
> true, and another you might be familiar with is the
> Fama/French Three Factor Model (FF3F) ...

Providing facts is what Science is all about, and a scientific theory should
never be published unless it is supported by facts.  I didn't study
economics and am not acquainted with EMT or Fama/French.  However, economic
theories are usually based on historical data (cycles, etc.) which are borne
out by facts and common sense.  The late Milton Friedman of the University
of Chicago was an eminent economist whose books make common sense out of
inflation, the free market, and taxation policies.

The point of my previous post was that, unlike Science, Philosophy doesn't
offer factual knowledge.  Philosophical research can only be done on what
other philosophers have said.  They can't "test the results" and build the
kind of data base on them that Science does.

> When you study any of these [philosophers] without
>  drawing your own conclusions, are you not guilty of
> imitative poetry? Was Plato’s and Aristotle’s
> philosophies not opposed to each other? Which view
> would you take, or what parts of each view would you
> take, or would it not be better to take out of them the
> best of what they offered in your own view?

I don't know what you mean by "imitative poetry".  Certainly you have to
draw your own conclusions, since you'll get a variety of conflicting
opinions.  Plato was not really "opposed to" Aristotle, but Aristotle took
his ideas in a different direction by trying to determine the "true
essences" of universal things.  I don't use Essence in the plural, since for
me there is only one Essence which manifests itself in the appearance of the
many.

> And if you accept philosophy as empirical, are you
> not guilty imitative poetry?

Again, you'll have to explain the meaning of this term to me.  Did you mean
to say "poetic license"?  I don't see any particular connection of poetry to
philosophy.  Philosophy encompasses the empirical world as well as whatever
ultimate reality the author proposes.  But it's not empirical evidence; the
literature of Philosophy consists of theories and hypotheses about the
universe, its creation, its morality, its values, and man's role in
existence.

Ham, previously}:
> If Pirsig intended his MoQ to be a redefinition of
> Zen Buddhism, wouldn't he have articulated it in Zen
> terms, or at least have referred his reader to the
> literature of Zen? (You can find many books that
> explain Buddhism to a western audience.)  Clearly,
> Pirsig's efforts were directed toward positing an
> original philosophy for our 20th century culture.

[Chin]:
> Yes, and there have been a few others who have done
> the same. Dr. Wayne Dryer might be one of the worst,
> or Jacob Needleman, or maybe Gurdjieff and his
> followers which have built schools all over the world
> following along the same efforts as Pirsig to bring East
> and West closer. Gurdjiff may be the closest as his is
> more for those who follow a scientific approach. ...

Gurdjieff was a pseudo-scientist of the New Age tradition.  His theories of
multi-dimensional universes (other realities) have no scientific support.
Wayne Dryer is more of a motivator and "self-development" proponent than a
philosopher.  Bill Moyers would probably be a better source for comparing
mysticism, religion, and philosophy.  I would also recommend "The History of
Philosophy" by Will and Arial Durant.

[Ham, previously]:
> The method of observation, experimentation, and
> verification was unknown to the medieval monks and
> priests who were the "scientists" of their day.  Not
> until the 13th century were there Latin translations of
> the main works of the intellectuals...which led to the
> birth of modern science.

[Chin]:
> Are you not skipping Aristotle? Is this not where the
> naming of things became considered knowledge?
> Was it not Greek philosophy that put Western man
> in his current SOM thing-king?

So Pirsig and his followers claim.  Classification is an important part of
scientific research -- particularly in the biological sciences.  And the
Periodic Table (of the elements and their valences) is an example of
classification used in Physics and Chemistry.

[Chin]:
> The apple falling was enough data to discover gravity
> without intuition? And Einstein found data that
> confirmed the bending of space and time without
> thinking of it first?

Certainly not.  Where have I said anything like that?  It sounds more like
Pirsig's idea of Science.

> You have scientific data pointing toward Essence?

No. As I said before, scientific evidence cannot be expected to support
philosophical theories.

[Ham, previously]:
> In my opinion, Morality is neither a science nor
> a philosophy.  It is the decision of a collective
> society to establish rules of behavior so that people
> can live in peace and harmony with each other.
> If you are a religious person, you may take the 'Ten
> Commandements' as a moral system defined by God;
> for me they are a codifed set of rules designed by
> man to preserve the existing culture. I don't believe in
the concept of a "moral universe".

[Chin]:
> If the Ten Commandments were enough, why would
> we need laws?  And are laws not made to be broken?
> If you are rich enough, or smart enough, is it not
> possible to get around the laws?  Would morality be
> that which you can get away with?

Do you think laws are made to be broken, Chin?  Or that morality is what you
can get away with?  I don't see the point of these questions.  The fact that
crooks and thieves break laws doesn't mean that laws serve no purpose.

> and each philosopher who went before you has had
> the benefits of the philosophers who went before them,
> so does not philosophy build this way?  Is concerning
> with public demand not a hindrance to finding Truth?

Yes, philosophers have the benefits of those who preceded them.  But, as I
stated above, Philosophy doesn't provide a culmulative data base in the way
that Science does.

> I think you are still calling Nothingness with nothing.

Do you mean "equating" Nothingness with nothing?  Why shouldn't I?  They
mean the same thing.

 > The contraction and expansion of what has always
> been there, no beginning or end, no large or small,
> might be as close to Nothingness as I could explain it.
> The Zen Masters didn’t explain it, but used it for a hint
> to find truth. Per their style, a hint is all you are offered
> -- never empirical truth -- never dogma.

If that is sufficient for you, run with it.  I prefer to delve into the
"hints" and come up with some basic principles that can unravel the mystery.

> Sorry, I typed the wrong word. Let’s rephrase it --
> ‘Existentialism’ would be pure Objectivism?  I’ll read
> ahead where you are explaining this later. It’s a bit late,
> and I may be under the afflence of inkahol.

Yes, you make much more sense when you're sober.

Regards,
Ham