[MD] humpty dumpty

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Dan]
Hi Arlo! Always good to hear from you!

[Arlo]
Ditto, Dan. It's always of particular interest to me when 'divergence' creeps in with people I normally agree mostly entirely with. And its always fascinated me, but please know I am not arguing *for* as much as I am curious why there is disagreement here. :-)

[Dan]
but I think Ron might be barking up the wrong tree when it comes to saying that Buddhism and the MOQ espouse belief over direct experience.

[Arlo]
I missed this in Ron's post, and I'd be surprised that he is arguing for belief as prior (or over) direct experience. That Quality is primary, or direct experience is first, is critical to Pirsig's metaphysics, and also matches pragmatism and Buddhism, I think of as terra firma; where we all begin. 

[Dan]
It could well by that Pragmatism leans toward belief but Buddhism does not. It leans away from belief and instead says we must approach the world through pure experience, unfiltered by beliefs and assumptions.

[Arlo]
I think, from what I understand, that pragmatism also begins in experience. I think the problem here may lie in divergent understandings of 'belief'. I am reminded of Pirsig's description of the yogis who buried themselves alive to restrict themselves to pure experience, but I wonder what benefit that brings to activity. To Peirce (and I assume the pragmatic tradition), "beliefs and assumptions" are not ideology, they are plans for action, they form the basis of our being able to 'act' in the world. I can bury myself in a sensory deprivation chamber, but if I want to ride my motorcycle to Bozeman I have to be able to make certain beliefs and assumptions about what that activity entails.

And this is where Peirce comes in. So long as we are not buried in a ditch, trapped in a pure moment of experience, we are planning and organizing our activity, and if we want to do THAT, then our beliefs/knowledge MUST align with experience. 

To restate, I am not saying that 'belief' is primary to 'experience'. But I am saying that in order to 'act' in the world one MUST have beliefs, and how those beliefs are fixed are critical. Aligning those beliefs with experience is, from what I understand, the key point of this essay.

(NOTE: I've since seen that DMB has responded about Peirce, will respond to that next).


[Dan]
This Peirce statement seems to contradict what Robert Pirsig says about value arising with direct experience and not from our belief sets concerning it:
"We come to the full possession of our power of drawing inferences, the last of all our faculties..."
[http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html]

[Arlo]
I think "drawing inferences" here is the post-intellectual semiotic/symbolic that such activity affords. I think the distinction here is that all, say, non-semiotic organisms are 'stuck' in the immmediate moment for all time, they can't plan, they can't organize, they can't imagine a history and they can't project a future. THIS is the faculty Peirce is talking about, the ability to rise out of the immediate moment, and record, analyze, project and plan, THIS is what separates us from a dog or an amoeba. 

[Dan]
I assume the sun will rise tomorrow based on the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow. I cannot know the sun will rise tomorrow until I directly experience the sun rising tomorrow. At that moment, I know.

[Arlo]
Okay, I think I understand your differentiation now (between 'belief' and 'know'), but the problem is that 'know' is always tied to the exact moment of experience. At the moment the sun rises, you KNOW its rising, but you can still only BELIEVE its going to rise tomorrow. This is where the idea of activity comes in, because while we may only ever know in the exact moment, we can plan and organize and act in ways towards and end before that happens. AND, it is this activity that stands up apart and unique!

[Dan]
Yes, a call to authority always helps to bolster one's belief system. :)

[Arlo]
Ah, well, I don't pretend to be an expert about things of which I am not, nor do I consider my ignorance a sign of heightened intellect. If more knowledgeable people can be called in to shape a structure that would otherwise be incomplete, what is wrong with that? DMB knows more about James than I do about Peirce, so I look forward to his insight to correct misunderstandings on my part.