[MD] Ham's paradox

[Ant McWatt]

Ham,

Thanks for your comments though I see that SA (in his Ham’s paradox post) 
has answered some of your points already.

Ham Priday stated August 17th:

What I see as Pirsig's "rationale" is to re-arrange the attributes of
existence to invent a new perspective.  Like the cartographer who, feeling a
bit tipsy one day, looks at a relief map of the world and decides to draw
his own boundaries,

Ant McWatt commented August 21st 2007:

That's a good analogy derived from Di Santo & Steele's excellent
"Guidebook to ZMM".  Nice to see it being used here.

As far as I know my analogy is original.  (I've never even seen the
Guidebook.)

Ant McWatt comments:

That analogy starts the Guidebook to ZMM so you’ve probably already seen it 
on this discussion group at some point.

Ham continued:

Pirsig looks at common experience and divides it up in an uncommon way,
making Quality the "moral superpower" and classifying subjective and
objective elements as its subordinate levels.

Ant McWatt commented August 21st:

Would Pirsig's ideas be considered uncommon in some East Asian
philosophical traditions?  Probably not.  Moreover, I think the important
consideration here is to determine whether or not this metaphysical
re-organization of Pirsig's is a better one than SOM based derivatives.

Ham commented August 22nd:

I don't deny that Pirsig's concept of the universe has more in common with
Eastern mysticism, but I believe he's writing for a Western audience.  What,
exactly, is an "SOM based derivative"?  Is it any or all works of the
Western philosophical tradition?

Ant McWatt comments:

That would be a rather sweeping generalisation but I think it tends to be 
true as SOM is so insidious.  If it’s any help to you, Section 2.2. of my 
Textbook states:
Pirsig uses the term ‘subject-object metaphysics’ (SOM) for any metaphysics 
(explicitly or implicitly) that perceives reality as either mind and/or 
matter such as idealism, materialism, and dualism.  This recognition is not 
unique to Pirsig as, for instance, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 
also notes that ‘a subject-object dichotomy is acknowledged in most Western 
traditions’.
SOM usually refers to any metaphysical system that follows the 
subject-object dichotomy epitomised by Descartes (1596-1650) in what is 
called the mind-body distinction.  This involves the division of a sentient 
being (such as a human being) into a body (which is spatially extended and, 
therefore divisible) and a mind (which is not).  In consequence of this 
assertion, Descartes (1641, p.59) believed that ‘the mind is completely 
different from the body.’
============================================================
As you state later in your e-mail of August 22nd that the “detested SO 
dichotomy is very real to me”, no doubt you can fill in the remaining 
details.

Ham continued August 22nd:

Is it logical positivism?  And what is there to "reorganize"?  Do you feel 
it is the philosopher's purpose to reorganize commonly held concepts or 
beliefs?

Ant McWatt comments:

Partly.  I think Pirsig’s purpose was to try and improve the general quality 
of life of Westerners without appealing just to materialistic needs.

Ham continued August 22nd:

A poet can attribute morality or intelligence to a motorcycle, if he wants 
to, or call it a
'static pattern' in the evolution of powered vehicles.  He may claim this to
be a new perspective of physical reality, but it won't change reality or the
way human beings perceive it.

Ant McWatt comments:

Not too sure about that.  If I perceive my motorcycle as a collection of 
small moral orders (rather than just amoral physical substance) than I’ll 
probably treat it with more care and respect.  In consequence, it will tend 
to run better and breakdown less and my reality will have changed for the 
better.  Moreover, I can’t see a Mexican immigrant without a passport get 
very far with a U.S. border guard by telling him that the boundary line 
between Mexico and the States is just a useful fiction.

Ham continued August 17th:

Having redefined everything to suit his moralistic rationale, he sits back
and says, "See--this is what reality really is.  Isn't morality wonderful?" 
How stupid of us ignoramuses not to see that we were looking at morality all 
the time! That's poetic license for a writer, of course.  But PHILOSOPHY??

Ant McWatt commented August 21st:

Ham, isn't this redefining "everything to suit his moralistic rationale"
exactly what you're doing with your obscure ideas concerning Essence?
Anyway, with the Tao Te Ching in mind, I think the distinction between
high quality poetry and high quality philosophy can be a difficult line to
draw, at best.

Ham continued August 22nd:

That's precisely the problem I see.  And Ron's Nietzsche essay makes the
same equivocation.  I would venture to speculate that there is much "low
quality" philosophy out there, as well.  The whole New Age gambit and
astrological  horoscopes, for example.

Ant McWatt comments:

Fair enough.

Ham continued August 22nd:

You know, of course, that the Millennium is scheduled for the year 2012, 
based on the Aztec calendar.

Ant McWatt comments:

That’s made my year knowing that. :-)

Ham continued August 22nd:

People will believe anything if it has a catchy phrase attached to it or 
makes them feel good.

Ant McWatt comments:

Sounds like a description of the presidential elections.

Ham continued August 22nd:

Ant, as much as it may appear that my thesis has an "agenda", I really try
not to redefine anything, especially for purposes of explaining something
away.  The detested SO dichotomy is very real to me, as for most people, and
I offer an hypothesis to explain it as the actualized mode of a primary
source.  I would expect Pirsig to regard this as a "high quality idea",

Ant McWatt comments:

He does but the SO dichotomy is exactly that, an idea.

Ham continued August 22nd:

…inasmuch as he has said the same about the concept that matter precedes
ideas (which of course I regard as a "low quality" idea).  While I might be
accused of "inventing" Essence, it is metaphysically fundamental in a way
that quality can never be.

Ant McWatt asks:

Well, I never wake up in the morning and get out of bed because I think some 
obscure new age sounding Essence (or primary source) requires actualisation 
into subjects and objects.  However, I do often get out of bed because I 
think it is _better_ to do so.  The appeal of ZMM especially is its 
practical application in relating to mechanical objects such as motorcycles, 
the resolving of personal relationships (as seen between Phaedrus and Chris) 
and the importance of nature, peace and quiet and not following the pack 
(down the crowded, stressful “freeway of modern materialistic life”).

Ham continued August 22nd:

But, then, Mr. Pirsig does not wish to be "trapped" by metaphysical 
definitions.

Ant McWatt comments:

I think Pirsig takes the highest possible quality philosophical position in 
this regard by assuming metaphysical definitions as being provisional (and 
therefore open to improvement).

Ham continued August 22nd:

Anyway, I should think that we're all sophisticated enough to distinguish
philosophical criticism from gratuitous insults.

Ant McWatt comments:

Fortunately, I think that’s true - most of the time.

Best wishes,

Anthony



.

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!  http://www.newhotmail.co.uk