[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi dmb,

There is a lot of pointing with little substance in your essay below.  I
will address part of it for further discussion to help promote MOQ away from
SOM.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> [dmb]
> In ZAMM [Pirsig] he says, "in scientific parlance the words for this
> absence of subject-object duality are scarce because scientific minds have
> shut themselves off from consciousness of this kind of understanding in the
> assumption of the formal dualistic scientific outlook."
>
> In Lila he says, "the MOQ goes on to say that science, the intellectual
> pattern that has been appointed to take over society, has a defect in it."
>

[Mark]
This is a throwback to the pythagorean school, where numbers were meant to
be sacred.  There were many sophists that did not subscribe to this.  If
there was any such appointment, it was discussed many, many years ago.

>
> In both cases the flaw is this dualistic scientific outlook and this
> PATTERN is distinguished from the intellect itself. And of course a great
> deal of the text is in fact Pirsig using his analytic knife to dissect this
> pattern, to make a case against this pattern.
>
> "The MOQ subscribes to what is called empiricism. It claims that all
> legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by thinking about what
> the senses provide. Most empiricists deny the validity of any knowledge
> gained through imagination, authority, tradition, or purely theoretical
> reasoning. They regard fields such as art, morality, religion and
> metaphysics as unverifiable. The MOQ varies from this by saying that the
> values of art and morality and even religious mysticism are verifiable, and
> that in the past they have been excluded for metaphysical reasons, not
> empirical reasons."
>

[Mark]
The Eleatic school, of which Xenophanes was a contributor, was one of
empiricism through the senses.  Parmenides diverged from these teachings to
state the senses were uncertain and reason was more important.  It is
important for you, dmb, to define what is meant by verifiable.  Are you
speaking of verification as is used in the metaphysics of science?  Does a
metaphysics have to be tested by science?   I am not sure where these things
(above) have been excluded since all these things are parts of philosophy.
 It would seem that if you are trapped in the world of science and trying to
get out, that you can propose a way out.  But, I believe we are already
beyond that in MOQ.  Are we starting over again?  If you are alluding to
metaphysics as only being one of reason, and that now it is not, this is
nothing new.  Seems like a full circle.


>
> And then the status of subjects and objects are addressed more specifically
> when he explains explains radical empiricism. We find Pirsig quoting James
> at the end of chapter 29. There he says that subjects and objects are not
> metaphysical realities. They are secondary concepts "derived from something
> more fundamental which he [James] described as 'the immediate flux of life
> which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual
> categories.' "
> The dualistic scientific outlook depends on believing that we are minds
> investigating an objective reality. But James and Pirsig turn that on its
> head. They say objective reality is a concept, an idea that comes from
> experience. They're demoting the ontological status of subject and objects.
> They de-reify subjects and objects. They're showing us how this is just an
> intellectual pattern, one that can be replaced, rather than the metaphysical
> starting points of reality. They're saying we are not stuck with that
> damaged screw. They're showing an intellectual way out. How else could an
> intellectual flaw be repaired except with great intellectual skill? And what
> could you replace it with if not better intellectual patterns? If the flawed
> pattern is equated with the whole or the general skill, that would mean we'd
> be stuck forever. But Pirsig uses that knife to carve the MOQ.
>

[Mark]
Here is where you get vague.  An intellectual pattern replacing an
intellectual pattern.  Could you describe this repair in your own words.
 When is it "better" enough to release itself from subjects and objects?  Is
Pirsig using the knife of a flawed pattern?  This seems to be what you are
stating above.  If not, what is the knife?  Please describe this method for
conversing without subjects and objects.  We all know that they are
analogies, even the "flux of life" is an analogy.  Where is the damaged
screw as you see it?  This seems more like a philosophy to demote one's own
philosophy, than to create a new one.

In science we are creating things from an objective reality.  This is no
different from creating a metaphysics.  Neither are True.  You appear to
still be stuck in the church of reason, dmb.

[dmb]

> That's the same solution he was offering in ZAMM, except there are more
> nuts and bolts, a fully developed conceptual structure that only clarifies
> and articulates the solution already offered in ZAMM. The moral codes,
> particularly the code of art, accomplishes his original purpose of making
> intellect subservient to Quality rather than the reverse. Pirsig is going
> after this flaw to improve science and the intellect, not to condemn them.
> Notice how both books are parallel on this point too even though one has the
> moral hierarchy and the other doesn't.
>

[Mark]
Here you seem to create a dualism where Quality and Intellect are two
different things and that one is higher than the other.  This does not make
any sense from my reading, motorcycle maintenance is an art.  The notion of
Quality comes before the notion of Truth, but intellect is simply something
which transcribes these.  Is the intellect free of Quality?  Are you saying
that the intellect is based solely on Truth?  Please explain.

I have deleted the rest which are quotes which you have misunderstood.  You
appear to be trying to create a Truth with this subject.  How is this
possible?  You allude to things but then do not explain them.  By answering
some of my questions you may make more sense.  Otherwise there is very
little cohesion in your post.

If you have not answers, then go back to where it makes sense to you.

Cheers,
Mark

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/md/archives.html
>