[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

At 02:22 AM 6/24/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha, Craig --
>
>
>[Marsha]:
>>I haven't the slightest idea what you want.  Who cares what 
>>"classical philosophers" regard as metaphysics?  What good
>>does it do to look backwards?  The MOQ is a synthesis of Eastern 
>>wisdom and Western intellect.  Dynamic Quality is
>>Ultimate Reality, static quality is conventional reality.  Quarks 
>>and leptons are static patterns of value within
>>conventional reality.  I'm sure you understand the difference
>>between an independent TiTs and patterns.
>
>I want what I assume everyone else here wants, Marsha.  As I told 
>Ron, I'd like to see more clarity in the concepts expressed on this 
>forum, leading to more accord among the participants.  There's a 
>tendency to accept Pirsig's statements dogmatically, which I can't 
>believe was his intention. Understanding comes from dialectical 
>analysis and fresh insights, not from quoting scripture as in the 
>game of "Pirsig says".  As inspiring and poetic as the author's 
>novels may be, his thesis is not above repute by philosophers who 
>have gone before, and his logic is not infallible.  We don't serve 
>the legacy of any philosopher by refusing to challenge his work.

I agree RMP's statements shouldn't be accepted dogmatically, but what 
I wanted from philosophy was a better life experience, not a 
philosopher's reputation, and a better life experience is exactly 
what I have been lead to.  Should I complain that it was too difficult?



>Quarks and leptons have no value to me, and I see no difference 
>between a pattern and a thing-in-itself.  Both are intellectual 
>constructs.  For someone who has taken eight undergraduate classes 
>in philosophy, I find it astonishing that you would so readily 
>dismiss all that has gone before. Craig just presented me with a 
>similar complaint.  Responding to my statement that the MoQ falls 
>short of what classical philosophers would regard as a metaphysics, he quipped:
>
>>But not short of what MODERN philosophers regard as metaphysics.
>
>Philosophical theory is not a cumulative discipline like the 
>physical sciences.

Very true!  So why, when  I am not a professional academic 
philosopher, should the MoQ rest on the history of western 
philosophy?   I think that the MoQ brings together the best of both 
the East and the West.  imho


>Empirical knowledge changes as we learn more about energy forces and 
>their affect on the physical universe and its macro and micro 
>constituents.  Philosophy changes as we learn more about 
>synthesizing ideas of the great thinkers.  The work of philosophers 
>throughout the ages constitutes a body of intellectual thought from 
>which we may draw certain conclusions and categorize the major 
>concepts as Platonic, Aristotelian, Cartesian, Kantian, Spenserian, 
>etc.  Metaphysics has traditionally been an important element of 
>these concepts.   The value of an idea is timeless, and it is 
>small-minded to regard an idea as having special significance simply 
>because it is "modern".

The history of philosophical thought is interesting, but leading one 
to insight and wisdom should be what make metaphysical concepts significant.



>[Marsha continues]:
>An individual can directly experience Dynamic Quality, but cannot
>know it.  Static quality (conventional reality), made up of static
>patterns of value, can be known only by conceptually constructing the
>knowledge and not by direct experience.  Thinking subjects and
>objects are fundamental reality is an illusion.  As far as I
>understand it, RMP denied an independent self, not the individual.
>
>You cannot deny the self without denying the individual.  This 
>notion of the individual as "a collection of interrelated and 
>interconnected patterns" is nothing but a ruse to avoid 
>acknowledging the self.  Personally, I find it offensive.  An 
>individual so vapid and hollow that it belongs to no one, has no 
>cognizant locus, no proprietary sensibility, no free choice, and 
>only a biological connection to the universe, is the equivalent of 
>an insentient robot.  It is the most demeaning concept of human 
>beingness that I can imagine.

I tried to get at this once before, but I'll try again.  The 
individual is awareness in the quality experience; the self is the 
ego, or the conceptually constructed and projected past and 
future.  The individual is dynamic and spontaneous, while the self is 
false and obscures experience.  The individual is not this and not 
that, but seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, hearing and 
thinking.  The self is a false identity built on patterns (memory and 
projection).  Does this make sense?



>>I do not consider Dynamic Quality chaos in any sense, but I have 
>>not had Mr. Pirsig's experiences and cannot know what he meant when 
>>he used the term.
>
>Then he hasn't communicated this concept very well, has he?  Why 
>should pure Quality be chaotic?  Indeed, why should the 
>undifferentiated, uncreated source of existential reality require "a 
>stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from 
>degeneration"?   Why should Dynamic Quality not survive without 
>static quality".  Must one consort with American Indians to 
>understand this principle?   That's a bit daffy, if you ask me.

It would be chaotic to totally ignore the conventional (patterned) 
world.  The conventional (patterned) reality is how human functioning 
evolved.  Totally destroy static patterns of value and there is no 
human functioning.  Dynamic Quality and static quality are mutually 
interdependent.  It is from DQ ( the undifferentiated continuum) that 
static patterns of value come into being, exist, and pass away.



>When I suggested that the pure state of anything cannot be chaotic, 
>Craig said:
>
>>As long as both views are consistent, they are equally supported by 
>>logic. The better view is determined by its explanatory value.
>
>Which is "the better view", then?  I posit Absolute Essence as the 
>uncreated, undifferentiated, and unchanging source from which all 
>otherness is negated.  Pirsig posits DQ as "the Quality of freedom 
>[that] creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static 
>quality, the quality of order [that] preserves our world."  Which 
>view has more "explanatory value"?
>
>Craig?  Marsha?

I still do not understand your explanations of Essence, more than 
that I cannot say.


Marsha


>  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>
>>At 02:44 PM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>>Marsha, Platt [Ron mentioned] --
>>>
>>>
>>>[Marsha]:
>>>>Reductionism:  "Everything in the Universe can be understood in terms
>>>>of quarks and leptons."
>>>
>>>[Platt]:
>>>>Nicely summarized. Ask a reductionist "Where do quarks and leptons
>>>>come from?" you'll get a blank stare or from an honest reductionist the
>>>>reply, "Don't ask."
>>>
>>>Quarks and leptons notwithstanding, the universe is understood in 
>>>terms of subjects and objects.  This has nothing to do with 
>>>theoretical physics or scientific principles.  It's an empirical 
>>>truth that we know from experience.  Just because we don't know 
>>>precisely what objects are or what the nature of "selfness" is 
>>>doesn't mean they don't exist or that they must be "explained 
>>>away" in order for us to be "enlightened".  That's no 
>>>philosophical breakthrough; it's just plain foolishness.
>>>
>>>If we insist on being reductionists, we need to acknowledge that 
>>>fundamental division of existence beyond which all else is 
>>>speculation. Although Descartes is no longer fashionable among the 
>>>elitists, his Cogito stands as a lasting reminder that existence 
>>>is an experiential duality.
>>>
>>>Ron recently quoted LILA to reveal Phaedrus's train of thought on 
>>>this issue:
>>>
>>>"But he realized that sooner or later he was going to have to stop 
>>>carping about how bad subject-object metaphysics was and say 
>>>something positive for a change. Sooner or later he was going to 
>>>have to come up with a way of dividing Quality that was better 
>>>than subjects and objects. He would have to do that or get out of 
>>>metaphysics entirely. It's all right to condemn somebody else's 
>>>bad metaphysics but you can't replace it with a metaphysics that 
>>>consists of just one word."
>>>
>>>The problem with this line of reasoning is that metaphysics is not 
>>>just "words" (one or many) but concepts explained by 
>>>words.  Pirsig tried to make the seven-letter word Quality a 
>>>metaphysical concept, which it cannot be without an ontology to 
>>>support it.  So, "to come up with a way of dividing Quality that 
>>>was better than subjects and objects," he substituted the 
>>>adjectives "static" and "dynamic".   Then, under the influence of 
>>>native-American culture supplemented with a little peyote, he had 
>>>an epiphany of sorts.
>>>
>>>"To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns 
>>>is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about 
>>>Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely 
>>>trying to define what it is. Static quality patterns are dead when 
>>>they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress 
>>>Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a 
>>>necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from 
>>>degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, 
>>>creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static 
>>>quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static 
>>>nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
>>>
>>>The "chaos" he attributed to "Dynamic Quality alone" may have been 
>>>a result of his altered state of mind, as there is no logic to 
>>>support the view that a primary source is chaotic in the absence 
>>>of patterns.  On the contrary, a pure source -- Quality, Value, or 
>>>Essence -- has no disparate elements but is homogeneous, whereas 
>>>chaos is defined as "a confused heterogeneous 
>>>agglomeration."  Obviously, Phaedrus's focus was limited to what 
>>>was "inside the box"  (experiential patterns) rather than the 
>>>primary source or nature of the box.  In fact, the MoQ thesis 
>>>never transcends the physical universe. It is a hierarchical 
>>>ontology based on a euphemistic or "romantic" notion of 
>>>Quality.  As such the MoQ falls seriously short of what classical 
>>>philosophers would regard as a metaphysics.
>>>
>>>Whether physical existence is ultimately "real" or not, the S/O 
>>>split is the fundamental reality of existence.  We can't make a 
>>>metaphysics out of objective reality any more than we can impart 
>>>Quality to it.  What is sadly missing in Pirsig's philosophy is 
>>>the sensible agent, without which neither quality nor value can be realized.
>>>
>>>Thanks for your time and, hopefully, your understanding,
>>>Ham
>>
>>
>>Ham,
>>
>>I haven't the slightest idea what you want.  Who cares what 
>>"classical philosophers" regard as metaphysics?  What good does it 
>>do to look backwards?  The MOQ is a synthesis of Eastern wisdom and 
>>Western intellect.  Dynamic Quality is Ultimate Reality, static 
>>quality is conventional reality.  Quarks and leptons are static 
>>patterns of value within conventional reality.  I'm sure you 
>>understand the difference between an independent TiTs and patterns.
>>
>>An individual can directly experience Dynamic Quality, but cannot 
>>know it. Static quality (conventional reality), made up of static 
>>patterns of value, can be known only by conceptually constructing 
>>the knowledge and not by direct experience.  Thinking subjects and 
>>objects are fundamental reality is an illusion.  As far as I 
>>understand it, RMP denied an independent self, not the individual.
>>
>>I do not consider Dynamic Quality chaos in any sense, but I have 
>>not had Mr. Pirsig's experiences and cannot know what he meant when 
>>he used the term.
>>
>>Marsha
>



"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
   (Friedrich von Schiller)