[MD] The Hero's journey

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:39 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Pirsig:
>
> "This is the usual argument against the philosophic idealism
> that is part of the MOQ so it had better be answered here.
> It is similar to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and
> nobody hears it, does it make a sound?” The historic
> answer of the idealists is, “What tree?”
> "In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence
> of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would
> vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has
> already been presupposed.
> "This presupposition is a standard logical fallacy known as a
> hypothesis contrary to fact. It is the “hypothetical question” that is
> always thrown out of court as inadmissible." [LILA'S CHILD annotation 80]
>
> Ron comments:
> In the context of "the historical response of the Idealists" (of which is part
> of the MoQ)it is to be clear about the context of the conversation, since
> a hypothosis always deals with presuppositions it only makes sense to follow through
> in the logical consistancy within the context and that they only work as hypothisis if
> they are taken to follow the patterns observed in experience.
> The people throwing out hypothisis based on the fact that they are hypothisis are positivists
> the aggressive sort which tends to take the tack that if it is not directly observed
> that it does not exist. Pirsig is saying that the type of question is thrown out not hypothetical
> questions in general.
>
> According to Pirsig that which has value exists. In that order, if a hypothisis has value
> (the sort of value that is consistent with experience) and has been tested in experience
> ie. trees make sounds when they fall and dog dishes continue to exist , then the hypothisis
> certainly IS admissable because it also holds the power to make accurate predictions in
> experience.
>
> Positing that trees dont make sounds and dog dishes vanish run contrary to patterns observed
> in experience it is the logical fallacy which is the "hypothisis contrary to fact" it is also a positivist
> position.
>
> ..Which begs the question as to why , exactly, Dan brings this into the discussion with Matt to
> support his contention. Unless Dan is saying that Pirsig is supporting a positivist point of view
> in regard to biography and historical context.

Dan:

You have misunderstood the discussion, Ron. I didn't say that trees
don't make sounds and dog dishes disappear. I asked what did Robert
Pirsig mean by: what trees? I asked how to empirically verify the
existence of trees or dog dishes when we don't experience them... when
they are imaginary. You have miscontrued what I said. We are on
completely different pages so far as I can tell.

Thanks anyway,

Dan