[MD] The other side of reified

[118]

Hi Ham,
I would agree with you.  Radical empiricism is anything but
metaphysics.  In fact it is the antithesis of metaphysics.  This is
why it is termed radical, not because it is a new kind of empiricism,
but because it is empiricism taken to its maximum definition.  So,
when Ron or dmb speak of your metaphysics being abstract, I would say,
"well, of course, that's why it is called metaphysics and not
science".  But any metaphysics has to be born from actual data.  We
cannot conceive of anything but what we experience.  In the same way
that the number series is based on experience, and then becomes
abstract symbols which are totally unconnected with their origins.  We
can conceive of the concept of negative two when we take two things
away.  However, negative two has no empirical grounds to it at all.
It is less than zero, and where does that put it?  Certainly not in
the empirical realm.

In my opinion, Pirsig has no idea what is meant by mysticism.  James
has a much better idea since he spoke with many mystics while
researching "The Varieties".  But even then, James must speak of such
a thing as a third person.  For even if he was a mystic (which I
believe he was), it is not something one can write about in a book,
except indirectly.  Pirsig, in his naivete on the whole subject,
compares it to being on peyote, which could not be farther from the
truth.  While peyote is a tool, it does not create the mystical
experience.  So, any time I read the word "mystic" being used in some
fantastic capacity, I can only smile.  Much of our daily life is
mystical.  It only becomes not-so, when we communicate about it.

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> David and Ron --
>
>
> On June 1, 2011 at 11:53AM, dmb <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with Ron. Ham's key terms are so highly abstract that they don't
>> even refer to anyone's actual experience. The whole system of relations
>> is purely verbal, untestable in experience and unusable in life. This is
>> exactly
>> what James hated most about the rationalistic philosophers, especially the
>> Absolutists. Ham's Essentialism seems to be a matter of moving a few
>> pieces
>> around on some metaphysical chessboard and none of those pieces makes
>> contact with actual experience at any point. The game is confined to those
>> 64 squares and none of the moves makes a difference to anyone or anything.
>> That's vicious abstractionism. That's why reification is a real problem.
>> This is an abuse of concepts and such misuse is to be avoided because it
>> will lead you down a dead-end road, lead you into confusion and isolation
>> and endless arguments about nothing at all.
>
> That's an unfair criticism, David.  Actual experience is the basis of
> empirical knowledge, not metaphysical conceptualization, as you should know.
> Metaphysics is always "abstraction".  Can you cite a philosopher, other than
> Pirsig, who provided "testable" data for a metaphysical theory?   Pirsig
> defined four levels of DQ.  I suppose you don't consider this hierarchy an
> abstraction, but is it experientially testable?  If the author couldn't even
> define Quality, how could he posit his fundamental principle as a "reality"?
> And if Quality is not an abstraction, how is it that we are still arguing
> about its nature?
>
> [DMB quoting Pirsig]:
>>
>> "Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of
>> reality
>> metaphysics is too 'scientific.' Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics
>> is
>> names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a
>> thirty-thousand page menu and no food."
>>
>> "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
>> 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality
>> doesn't
>> have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of
>> definition.
>> Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
>> abstractions."
>
> Pirsig had disdain for metaphysics, so he ridiculed it as "names about
> reality", a "menu without food," etc.  What he really wanted to do was
> reduce metaphysics to the experiential level.  (Oops! ...that's one he
> didn't name.)  Oh well, we'll just equate Quality to Experience and avoid
> the need for definitions altogether.  It's a nice euphemism, but hardly a
> metaphysical thesis.
>
> For one thing, we don't "directly experience Quality independent of
> intellectual abstractions."  Quality is an assessment of the aesthetic or
> moral value of a phenomenon relative to other phenomena experienced or
> observed.  That involves memory recall, intellectual judgment, and
> sufficient experience with the type of phenomenon in question to make such
> an assessment.  (And please don't quote me the hot stove analogy again.
> Getting one's ass burned is not experiencing Quality--high or low, positive
> or negative--it's feeling pain.)
>
> If I'm guilty of "vicious abstractionism", your esteemed author is at least
> guilty of "extreme reifiication".
> IMHO.
>
> --Ham
>
> 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
>