[MD] Tit's

[Krimel]

dmb says:
The MOQ's dualism is a distinction between Dynamic Quality and static
quality. It says DQ is the primary empirical reality, a phenomenal reality.
The "external world" denied by this would be Kant's things in themselves,
the objective reality, material reality or whatever one wishes to call the
supposed cause of the phenomena. In other words, the MOQ does not deny the
experience from which we derive ideas about the external world, it simply
denies that the external world is anything more than an idea. 

[Krimel]
Frankly I think Pirsig would be shocked to hear the MoQ described as
dualistic. In ZMM he rants on and on about the evils of dualism and early on
declares:

"The One in India has got to be the same as the One in Greece. If it's not,
you've got two. The only disagreements among the monists concern the
attributes of the One, not the One itself."

The argument over materialism versus idealism is at its root an argument
about which vocabulary to apply in describing the Tao. At this point I do
not think the vocabulary of science is nearly as substance oriented as
Pirsig rants against. I do not believe that a probabilistic view of
"scientific law" encounters the same kind of objections either.

I would also note that Bennett, M.R. and Hacker, P.M.S 2003 volume
"Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" caused big stir in both
neuroscience and philosophical circles. A feud erupted among Hacker, one of
the world's authorities on Wittgenstein, Dennett and John Searles. Their
feud, introduced and comment of by Daniel Robinson, was published as
"Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language" last year. Hacker
argues mainly against the sloppy use of language in the neurosciences, where
in, various parts and systems of the brain are attributed as having their
own agency.

I believe that one of the few points that Hacker, Dennett and Searle agree
upon was that neuroscience research labs would all benefit from having a
philosopher on board.

dmb says:
Yea, I know. David Lynch is convinced that transcendental meditation has
huge benefits for creativity as well as mental health. I have a four and a
half hour program on the spiritual and scientific explorations of human
experience from Stanford. His holiness, the Dalai Lama is the star of this
program. John Horgan's book, "rational mysticism" discusses the scientific
investigations into this as well. What makes you think that I don't know
about this stuff? I live in this world too. See, I keep telling you that the
data, the scientific facts are not in dispute. It is inherently
philosophical to compare SOM with the MOQ. Talking about the status of the
external world will not be helped by making reference to this facts. Roughly
speaking, I'm talking metaphysics and you keep responding with physics. You
think you're talking over my head but its more like you don't even
understand what the topic is. As consequence, we're just talking past each
other. 

[Krimel]
The data is not in dispute? Then what the fuck are you talking about? This
exchange started when I was attempting to show how specific data regarding
the formation of pre-intellectual awareness takes place. I was attempting to
show how unconscious and autonomic emotional functions influence how we
perceive the world. I was trying to look at what the "undisputed" scientific
data can tell us about how we construct our ideas, concepts and
understanding into a sense of unity out of the multimodal and disparate data
that enters our awareness. 

I was commenting on Ron realization that the notion of illusion is not so
much about mirages and fantasies but directly applies to Pirsig's account of
"intellectual glasses". I believe that all relates directly to the MoQ and
the topics discussed here. I was in fact striving to show not only how the
MoQ allows us to understand this data better but how the data can help us
understand the MoQ better.

Rather than bringing your vast command of the data to bear on the matter you
launch into a bullshit discussion of the history philosophic discourse on
the importance of language and your mistaken impressions on the metaphysical
issues at stake.

dmb says:
If I had said there were no dream studies, you would have a good point. But
I didn't so you don't. 

[Krimel]
What you DID say was that such studies of mystical experience, dream and
hallucinations have been "neglected" when in fact, as you now seem to admit,
they have not.

[dmb]
In fact, the head of the religious studies department at my school is a
Jungian. I'll be taking the psychology of religion from her starting a week
from today. I studied some Freud and such for another class a year ago. And
of course my interest in mythology (Joe Campbell is a Jungian of sorts) is
related to dreams as well. I'm currently reading a thing called "the
Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Civilization". Its all about the
impact of madness, hallucinations, prophecies and dreams in the ancient
world and the ways in which this feature of our culture has been air-brushed
out of the picture. Likewise, Pirsig says we have a blindspot here. That's
what I mean by neglect, not total ignorance. 

[Krimel]
Airbrushed out of the picture? A blindspot? Far be it from me to question
your formidable command of the literature but I see no shortage of work
being done on mental illness or any of those topics. You are reading a book
on the subject now. Were there no other volumes on the topic on the shelf
you pulled it from? Pirsig's collected works are centered around mental
breakdowns, his own and Lila's. The last millennium ended in the "Decade of
the Brain".

If by neglect you mean that sane people to not regard prophecy as a reliable
guide to the future; or that dreams and hallucinations should not be taken
as evidence that supernatural voices should be heeded, or that the walls are
melting and people can fly; well good. 

dmb says:
Your continued efforts to discuss metaphysics by citing scientific studies
can only be the result in a profound misconception as to the topic under
discussion. Again, the data is not in dispute. The MOQ does nothing to alter
the raw data. 

[Krimel]
My efforts have been to apply the MoQ to the data and to show specifically
how understanding one aids in understanding the other. If you believe that
the vocabulary of transduction of energy, neural pathways, and brain centers
is too materialistic then since the data are not in dispute perhaps you
could restate the data using an idealistic vocabulary. Instead you
misrepresent and misunderstand what I have said and talk about what a clever
boy you are. 

[dmb]
Its about the assumptions behind that data and the conclusions drawn from
it. 

[Krimel]
So come on Dave, what are the "right" assumptions? What conclusions should
we draw from the actual data?

[dmb]
Its not like I have my head in the sand, you know. 

[Krimel]
Here we agree. It is more like your head is up your ass.

[dmb]
Its not like I'm hiding from the facts. In fact, I'm already signed up to
study psychology and the social sciences this semester. 

[Krimel]
Since you know so much and have already judged the metaphysical underpinning
why waste your time?

[dmb]
The chairman of the grad school was a psychotherapist until she found it
lacking and became a philosopher instead. I studied Freud, Piaget, and
Lacan(among others) with her. 

[Krimel]
Then you should know that the whole field of psychology beginning with
William James and Wilhelm Wundt in the 1880 began as an attempt to give up
silly rationalist arguments about epistemology and ontology and look at what
human being actually do, how they think, and how they make sense of the
world. They probably figured that getting a handle on stuff like that might
inform metaphysics rather continuing along the path you and Ham have chosen
which is letting metaphysical dogma dictate your conclusions.

[dmb]
She has said very flattering things (to other students) about the term paper
I wrote for her class. It served as a writing sample in my application
package too. My point? People who are in a much better position to judge
what I'm saying think I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. 

[Krimel]
Wow, Dave, I'm impressed. In calculating your education expenses for the
year do you have a line item in your budget for polished apples and
chapstick?

[dmb]
And based on the case you've been making, I'd say that YOU have no idea
what's going on and think you're subscribing to a rather naive sort of
scientism. 

 [Krimel]
Oh, No! "Naïve Scientism"! I must add that to religious fanatic, scientific
materialist, SOMist and existentialist. I'm becoming something of a jack of
all trades. Perhaps instead of casting about for labels your time might be
better spent addressing the issues.

[dmb]
Again, science is one thing and the philosophy of science is another. You'll
never keep up unless and until you switch to the actual topic.

[Krimel]
As though science and philosophy of science have no points of contact.
Obviously not in your world. But it is not doubt safer for you to remain in
your comfortable "feels good" romantic little world. 

You pretend to be arguing MoQ versus SOM but you are really just a romantic
whining about the classical understanding.

Pirsig has a lot to say about this:

"The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative,
intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. 'Art' when it is opposed
to `Science' is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It
proceeds by feeling, intuition and esthetic conscience."

"Classical understanding is concerned with the piles and the basis for
sorting and interrelating them. Romantic understanding is directed toward
the handful of sand before the sorting begins. Both are valid ways of
looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other."

[Krimel]
Nevertheless, Pirsig spends much of ZMM trying to affect such a realization.

"There is a classic esthetic which romantics often miss because of its
subtlety."

"This is: It is just duller than ditchwater. Yah-da, yah-da, yah-da, yah-da,
yah, carburetor, gear ratio, compression, yah-da-yah, piston, plugs, intake,
yah-da-yah, on and on and on. That is the romantic face of the classic mode.
Dull, awkward and ugly. Few romantics get beyond that point."

"These tools for example...this wrench...has a certain romantic beauty to
it, but its purpose is always purely classical. It's designed to change the
underlying form of the machine."

(Psst, Dave try scratching out "wrench" and use your crayon to put in
"science". There is a hidden message for you.)

[Krimel]
But what Phaedrus constantly harps on is the romantic's failure to
appreciate classical aesthetics. I would say the theme of ZMM is to unveil
that aesthetic and urge romantics like yourself to get a fucking clue.

"The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled
you into thinking you know something you don't actually know. There's not a
mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn't suffered from that one
so much that he's not instinctively on guard. That's the main reason why so
much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious.
If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a
flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you.
It does it often enough anyway even when you don't give it opportunities."

"Well, it is art," I say. "This divorce of art from technology is completely
unnatural. It's just that it's gone on so long you have to be an
archeologist to find out where the two separated. Rotisserie assembly is
actually a long-lost branch of sculpture, so divorced from its roots by
centuries of intellectual wrong turns that just to associate the two sounds
ludicrous."
They're not sure whether I'm kidding or not. 
"You mean," DeWeese asks, "that when I was putting this rotisserie together
I was actually sculpting it?" 
"Sure."
He goes over this in his mind, smiling more and more. "I wish I'd known
that," he says. Laughter follows. 
Chris says he doesn't understand what I'm saying. "That's all right, Chris,"
Jack Barsness says. "We don't either." More laughter. 
"I think I'll just stay with ordinary sculpture," the sculptor says. 
"I think I'll just stick to painting," DeWeese says. 
"I think I'll just stick to drumming," John says.

[Krimel]
Just stick to laughing Dave... 
It will make you "feel" a lot better about being clueless.