[MD] Tuukka's letter to Robert Pirsig

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Craig,
very good questions. I like your approach. Let's get a bit clearer on this.



>  Craig:
>  [Tuukka, reconstructed]
>  1) A nonrelativizably used predicate is being used meaninglessly (from a logical point of view).



Tuukka:
True.



>  2) Using predicates meaninglessly is not allowed in unambiguous text that may be rationally understood.



Tuukka:
It seems like I really wrote so earlier, accidentally and
exagerratingly. But I do not believe in general bans like that.

Instead, all meaning, that can be bestowed on a nonrelativizably used
predicate, is only metaphorical, and should be clearly denoted as such.
To bestow logically intelligible meaning on a nonrelativizable predicate
would be equivalent to beginning to use it relativizably.



>  3) Alleging that a predicate is being used nonrelativizably is
>  using the predicate 'nonrelativizably used predicate'.



Tuukka:
Yes. But the "nonrelativizable use of a predicate", that is, the way of
using the predicate instead of the predicate itself, is relativizable.



>  4) In alleging that a predicate is being used nonrelativizably, the predicate
>  'nonrelativizably used predicate' is used nonrelativizably.



Tuukka:
Yes, but if we refer to a nonrelativizably used predicate with the
expression "nonrelativizably used predicate", the reader can readily
understand that it has no logical meaning, and as such, is not tempted
to imagine otherwise.

Pirsig's "Dynamic Quality" and "Quality" are also nonrelativizably used
predicates, but he does not confuse the reader, because he adequately
expresses that the meaning of these predicates cannot be encapsulated in
dialectic.



>  5) :. Alleging that a predicate is being used nonrelativizably is
>  not allowed in unambiguous text that may be rationally understood.



Tuukka:
As 2) is not true, this conclusion does not logically follow. Using
predicates nonrelativizably is allowed, but nonrelativizably used
predicates should be explicitly introduced as such. The reader should
not be tricked to believe that although the predicates are used
relativizably by the author, the reader himself hasn't yet understood
how they should be relativized. If the author doesn't understand that
either, he should not conceal it.

Examples of authors who trick readers to believe they are using
predicates relativizably are Rescher, in Rationality (1989) and Langan
in the CTMU paper (2002). What pains me is that Rescher is a very
prestigious academic, and Langan is a target of ridicule, although the
quality of these works is quite similar.

Thank you for your observations,
Tuukka