[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[Joseph Maurer]

On 11/23/09 6:42 PM, "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
If everything is 
experience, what could it possibly mean for something to be
"more empirical"?  How can we drive a metaphysical wedge
between the experience of low quality associated with the
hot stove and the hot stove itself (a distinction you need in
order to say the former is "more empirical") when the "hot
stove itself" is nothing more or less than a set of static
patterns of quality, meaning that "the experience of low
quality" is not _associated_ with the stove, but rather _is
the stove itself_.  Right?
<snip>

Hi Matt and Ron,

Pirsig subtitles Lila with ³An Inquiry into Morals².  My take on that
subtitle is that he expects a discussion to follow evolution as a foundation
for morality.  In an evolutionary setting I expect ³more empirical² would
mean a more intense awareness of the differing levels of evolution.  The hot
stove and the experience of sitting on a hot stove relate to differing
evolutionary levels, steel and flesh.

An individual can participate in all of the evolutionary levels
unconsciously, since his attention at any moment is from only one level.  I
think all he was trying to say was that sitting on a hot stove will wake you
up by the shock.

The difficulty of participating simultaneously in all of the levels of
evolution, is that my awareness falls asleep to other levels.  ³The hot
stove² is a shock to wake me up to differing levels, created during the
lapse in the awareness of the danger of sitting on a hot stove.

Joe  

> If everything is 
> experience, what could it possibly mean for something to be
> "more empirical"?  How can we drive a metaphysical wedge
> between the experience of low quality associated with the
> hot stove and the hot stove itself (a distinction you need in
> order to say the former is "more empirical") when the "hot
> stove itself" is nothing more or less than a set of static
> patterns of quality, meaning that "the experience of low
> quality" is not _associated_ with the stove, but rather _is
> the stove itself_.  Right?