[MD] differences between MoQ and SOM

Wed Oct 22 19:36:14 PDT 2008

Platt-

It is my impression were saying essentially the same thing in different words in response to Ham. Thank you though. 
I feel like I owe Ham an apology or something, but that's a different story.
I shall await his response eagerly.

-Zenith
----------------------------------------
> From: plattholden at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:30:09 -0400
> Subject: Re: [MD] differences between MoQ and SOM
> 
> Hi Ham, 
> 
>> [Ham, previously]:
>>> Thus, for example:
>>> 1)  students carry backpacks
>>> 2)  my wife carries a backpack
>>> 3) :. my wife is a student.
>>>
>>> Or -- following Pirsig's construction:
>>> 1)  birds can fly
>>> 2)  birds are composed of cells
>>> 4) :.cells can fly.
>> 
>> [Platt]
>>> In the first example, the premise is questionable.
>>> In the second example, if you add the word "exclusively"
>>> as Pirsig does in his syllogism, then the conclusion would
>>> be logically correct  Right? (See Craig's explanation.)
>> 
>> In logical syllogisms, the first premise is usually a given; so that they
>> would be expressed as  propositions like  IF birds can fly, IF students 
>> carry backpacks, IF professors exercise choice, etc.
> 
> There's a difference between a logical argument and a true argument 
> expressed in logical form. My mistake. I assumed we were talking about the 
> latter although I gave the impression I was talking about the former by 
> casting it as "logically correct." Just goes to show -- words mean things. 
> Many misunderstandings occur because terms are misused (as in this case) or 
> abused (as in the case of Obama's "tax credit" for those who don't pay tax) 
> 
>> [Craig's explanation]:
>>> Pirsig's position is that chemistry professors ARE NOT
>>> composed exclusively of atoms.  Atoms are not alive,
>>> don't have tenure & don't know chemistry.
>>> The MoQ levels address this issue.
>> 
>> Of course Craig is right.  Not only are atoms not alive, they are not
>> aware.
> 
> You seem to assume that one must be alive to be aware. Pirsig challenges 
> that assumption. 
>  
>> Therefore they have no knowledge, no values, and no morality.  But to
>> learn 
>> why Pirsig chose this analogy to claim
>> decision-making on the part of atoms, I checked out my paperback LILA to
>> discover that he was .  actually talking about the Free Will/Determinism
>> controversy.  His point was that "the difference between these two points
>> of 
>> view is philosophic, not scientific."  Unfortunately, however, he makes 
>> several assertions in this paragraph that are unfounded and confusing to
>> anyone unfamiliar with his peculiar view of cosmic morality.
>> 
>> For example:
>> 
>> - "The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws."  (Free Will?)
>> 
>> - "Chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible
>> cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do so." 
>> (Determinism?)
>> 
>> - "We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation
>> that chemistry professors are, in general, moral."  (Then comes the 
>> syllogism to "prove" it.)
>> 
>> With all due respect to the author, this is nonsense.  First of all,
>> Pirsig 
>> himself as much as tells us that experience creates our reality, which 
>> suggests that any Free Will or Determinism perceived in existence is an 
>> attribution by the cognizant subject.  What must occur before the
>> experience 
>> of process and causes is individuated awareness and its sense of Value. 
>> Pirsig calls this sensibility "pre-intellectual experience", but he does
>> not 
>> posit it as proprietary to the subject.  In fact, he gives as much 
>> value-sensibility to atoms and other objective phenomena as he gives to
>> the 
>> individual who observes them.
> 
> No, he doesn't. "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience 
> events but do not react to them biologically socially or intellectually.  
> They react to these experiences inorganically, according to the laws of 
> physics." (LC, Note. 30.) Your entire argument appears to rest on denying 
> experience or values to anything other than a "cognizant subject, i.e, a 
> human being. 
> 
>> If man is not a free agent, where is the
>> Free 
>> Will?   Whose will is it that creates the universe?  Obviously, Pirsig
>> wants 
>> to be on the side of the objectivists who claim that everything is the 
>> result of cause-and-effect determinism.
> 
> No.  Pirsig posits Quality prior to free will and/or determinism.
> 
>> [Platt]:
>>> The premise is accepted by many physicists who believe all is
>>> simply different forms of energy. That's at the root of Pirsig's
>>> criticism of SOM. How does "everything is different forms of
>>> energy" explain quality?  In fact, how does it explain "different
>>> forms?"  (That's when "oops" comes in.)  As for configuring
>>> atoms of a person, I'm sure you're familiar with, "Beam me up,
>>> Scotty."  Fiction now, but who knows?
>> 
>> Apart from the "oops" factor and the fact that the MoQ is a metaphorical
>> representation of physical existence, do you really believe that a human
>> being is no more than a particular arrangement of atoms or energy
>> patterns?
> 
> Certainly not. I thought I made in clear that I don't accept the premise of
> physicists.  A human being is a combination of physical, biological, social
> and intellectual patterns of value, plus the ability to respond to Dynamic
> Quality. In other words, as much as I admire your metaphysics of
> Essentialism, I believe in Pirsig's MOQ. But, I don't consider myself 
> infallible. 
> 
> With kind regards,
> Platt
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008