[MD] Quick one: causation

[MarshaV]

At 10:02 PM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>Krimel asked:
>Where in either book does Pirsig dismiss Kant's argument? Please anyone can
>answer the question.
>
>dmb says:
>Kant is discussed in ZAMM, starting in chapter 11. It's worth pointing out
>that he says that this discussion is important for understanding what
>Phaedrus thought and that Kant has to be rejected to the extent that he was
>working within SOM. Or, if you prefer, his discussion is important for
>understanding Pirsig's attack on the metaphysics of substance and helps to
>explain why there are no Kantian things-in-themselves in the MOQ. And
>basically, these days, Kant's categories of the mind have been replaced by
>language. Things like time and space are not considered to be inherent
>categories of the human mind so much as the thought categories handed down
>by the culture.
>
>[Krimel]
>Yeah I get that at least part of it first he says:
>
>"I want now to magnify this picture of Kant and show a little about how he
>thought and how Phædrus thought about him in order to give a clearer picture
>of what the high country of the mind is like and also to prepare the way for
>an understanding of Phædrus' thoughts."
>
>Then after expanding on Kant's ideas he concludes with this:
>
>"Kant's metaphysics thrilled Phædrus at first, but later it dragged and he
>didn't know exactly why. He thought about it and decided that maybe it was
>the Oriental experience. He had had the feeling of escape from a prison of
>intellect, and now this was just more of the prison again. He read Kant's
>esthetics with disappointment and then anger. The ideas expressed about the
>``beautiful'' were themselves ugly to him, and the ugliness was so deep and
>pervasive he hadn't a clue as to where to begin to attack it or try to get
>around it. It seemed woven right into the whole fabric of Kant's world so
>deeply there was no escape from it. It wasn't just eighteenth-century
>ugliness or ``technical'' ugliness. All of the philosophers he was reading
>showed it. The whole university he was attending smelled of the same
>ugliness. It was everywhere, in the classroom, in the textbooks. It was in
>himself and he didn't know how or why. It was reason itself that was ugly
>and there seemed no way to get free."
>
>I can see here that he rejects some part of Kant although it is not clear
>what. But rejection is not even in the ballpark with refutation. Do you
>seriously think calling Kant ugly is an argument?

Krimel,

To someone who eventually equates reality to 
experience, saying something is ugly may be the 
perfect statement.  It won't, though, satisfied those who are logic bound.


Marsha





>But then when Pirsig in having his crystallization moment he says this:
>
>"The wave of crystallization rolled ahead. He was seeing two worlds,
>simultaneously. On the intellectual side, the square side, he saw now that
>Quality was a cleavage term. What every intellectual analyst looks for. You
>take your analytic knife, put the point directly on the term Quality and
>just tap, not hard, gently, and the whole world splits, cleaves, right in
>two...hip and square, classic and romantic, technological and
>humanistic...and the split is clean. There's no mess. No slop. No little
>items that could be one way or the other. Not just a skilled break but a
>very lucky break. Sometimes the best analysts, working with the most obvious
>lines of cleavage, can tap and get nothing but a pile of trash. And yet here
>was Quality; a tiny, almost unnoticeable fault line; a line of illogic in
>our concept of the universe; and you tapped it, and the whole universe came
>apart, so neatly it was almost unbelievable. He wished Kant were alive. Kant
>would have appreciated it. That master diamond cutter. He would see. Hold
>Quality undefined. That was the secret."
>
>Does this sound like he wants Kant around so he can rub his nose in it? It
>sounds less like spite and more like a desire to share the moment with
>someone who will understand it.
>
>Where does he say there are no specifically Kantian TiTs? You say he rejects
>Kant to the extent that Kant was working within SOM. Where does Pirsig say
>this and what is the "extent"?
>

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in 
which each is a reflection of all the others in a 
fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.