[MD] The other side of reified

[Ham Priday]

Hey, David --

Ham said:
> Actual experience is the basis of empirical knowledge, not metaphysical
> conceptualization, as you should know. Metaphysics is always 
> "abstraction".

dmb says:
> Let me stop you right there because I can already see that you do not
> understand this criticism. The idea here is not to oppose abstractions.
> The idea is to stop abusing abstractions and instead use them properly.
> And what is the "proper" use of abstract concepts according to the MOQ?
> They come from past experience and their point and purpose is to guide
> future experience. When they become detached and float free of this
> experiential reality, abstractions become vicious. When they are used to
> denigrate the empirical reality from which they are derived, abstractions
> become vicious. When they are taken to be more real than the empirical
> reality to which they refer, this is an abuse of abstractions. In the MOQ,
> metaphysics and truth and ideas are static intellectual quality and these
> verbal and conceptual static patterns are always secondary. They always
> exist in relation to experience or when they don't it is like a broken 
> circuit
> or a wrench in the gears. This is a form of pragmatism, which says true 
> ideas
> are the ones that function in experience, the concepts that lead you into
> harmonious relations, that you can smoothly ride upon in experience.
> Bad ideas will lead you into confusion, isolation or even danger. And then
> there are ideas that make no difference at all because they're purely 
> verbal,
> so abstract as to be unconnected to anything known in experience.
> This is what I'm saying about your key terms, especially "Essence".
> For James and Pirsig, there is no such thing. As James famously said,
> the essence of a thing is just whatever we find most important about it.
> It's not an actual entity or an eternal principle. It's just an 
> abstraction,
> something we carve out of experience.

You say so much in defense of your position that I hardly know where to 
start (and usually don't).

James is hailed for his pragmatism which stemmed largely from his practice 
in psychology.  The pragmatists of the last two centuries have been 
scientists (objectivists). Their goal is to explore the physical world for 
empirical knowledge and principles that can be applied to solving problems 
and inventing new things.  They have no professional interest in aesthetics, 
morality, human values, or a transcendent reality.  Indeed, such subjective 
concepts are only distractions to the experimental method.

Pirsig wanted his philosophical legacy to be identified with "radical 
empiricism", although it is clear that he viewed the logical positivists as 
his nemesis.  I think the category that best fits him is "pragmatic 
idealist", for he is more interested in anthropology and societal 
development than in metaphysics.  His ontological paradigm is an 
evolutionary hierarchy of Quality levels that govern the universe, including 
mankind (when individuals are fortunate enough to "latch onto" the higher 
levels.)   There is no Creator in this existential scheme (Quality is 
utimately self-created), no teleology except for the 'betterness" toward 
which the universe automatically moves, and no need for a free agent, since 
the universe is assumed to be inherently moral.  In short, this "empirical 
reality" which you tout as "the guide to future experience" is no more than 
interacting patterns of quality carried along in the stream of evolution.

"This is a form of pragmatism," you say, in which "true ideas are the ones 
that function in experience, the concepts that lead you into harmonious 
relations that you can smoothly ride upon in experience."  In other words, 
Truth is what works, and the only ideas worth pursuing are those programmed 
into us from history.
Can you understand why your denial of free will and free choice is for me an 
"abuse of abstraction"?   Or why a  controlling universe that allows no 
meaning or purpose for the individual human is a "vicious abstraction"?

 dmb further says:
> Again, the idea here is to stop the ABUSE of concepts. In those quotes
> Pirsig is saying that metaphysical ideas ought not be confused with 
> reality.
> The idea is NOT to say that menus are bad, just that it is a mistake to 
> eat
> the menu. Eating the menu or thinking it more real than the food is the 
> mistake
> known as reification. The MOQ is not metaphysical in that sense, in the 
> sense
> of positing entities or principles that are outside of experience, whether 
> it's
> supposed to be the conditions behind experience, under experience as a
> foundation or above experience as some divine principle. The pragmatist
> will not rule out any idea in advance as long as we take such notions as a
> working hypothesis and put it to work in experience. If your idea can not 
> be
> put to the test because, by definition, it represents something that can't 
> be
> known or tried out in experience, then the pragmatist will say it is an 
> empty,
> useless idea.

Your stand as a pragmatist, then, is that if the truth about reality cannot 
be known, it is useless.  But what if direct knowledge of this truth is 
withheld from us for a reason -- suppose it would impair our lives as 
existents, or induce suicidal thoughts, for example; or on the positive 
side, suppose it would afford us such insight and wisdom that we might live 
in peace and harmony with all humanity without fear of bodily harm or 
retribution? Would such a concept still be "an empty, useless idea"?  How 
could we ever know if we are not permitted to consider it?

In my own defense, I have not proposed any idea or notion that is harmful to 
human culture, or that cannot be incorporated into a belief system with 
salutary results.  I don't know if this qualifies as "testable", but it 
should certainly clear me of any "vicious" intent.  Again, a metaphysical 
thesis is not a praxis which a society can quickly adapt to, so I've steered 
away from polemics and political ideologies, except for those which foster 
individual freedom, personal authenticity, and self-reliance.

I'll refrain from commenting on your last two paragraphs extolling a book 
that describes "getting a grasp of the situation," since you have outlined 
the theme quite nicely.  Indecisiveness to the extent of Lehrer's example is 
a rare malady, although I've seen such behavior in autism and attention 
deficiency disorders.  I accept the co-functioning of feeling and thinking, 
David, so you don't need to sell it to me.  Where we differ is that you 
believe Quality (Value) is directly experienced, whereas I maintain that it 
is sensed prior to and "shapes or objectifies" experience.

Thanks for the opportunity to exchange views.

Essentially speaking,
Ham