Re: LS Stand and be Counted

From: David L Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Date: Wed Sep 29 1999 - 17:58:31 BST


YET ANOTHER SUMMARY

"We know a great deal...Our ignorance is sobering and boundless." K.R. Popper

LS

After reading the responses to this thread I have a confession to make. A
couple of years ago I wrote a reactive and sophomoric response to a noted
metaphysician's criticism of Lila. After due reflection, his charge that the
work is "mind numbingly unclear" is becoming clearer and clearer to me. I
point to the other summaries as a clear indication that I am not the only one
in this position. This is not only GOOD, but I am beginning to think was
intentional on Pirsig's part and essential to understanding the MoQ.

To restate the problem:

1 A short while from now we will have 6 billion people on this planet all with
a need for a "map" of reality.

2. There are currently two major schools of "reality map making" which have
been variously called East/West, science/religion, rational/mystical, and
literally hundreds of thousands of smaller schools all peddling nearly an
infinite variety of these maps.

3. So the essential problem, which is also the original problem; "Which map do
I choose?" or more importantly "Which is the BEST map to choose?" is, and
always has been, "mind numbingly unclear".

So along come Pirsig with yet another "map". But it is not just any other map,
he claims it to be "the map of maps", the "meta-map" which he claims is rooted
not on the essential elements of one major school, but both.

Proposition One;

The MoQ is not a map of reality. Following in the Eastern (Zen) tradition it
understands that to be truly useful "reality maps" are and must be
individually constructed. So Pirsig works are, in part, a discussion of the
problems of map making and, in part, "point" out how "GOOD" maps can be
created, but clearly maintains that map building must be and is an individual responsibility.

Proposition Two:

Map building is a moral activity. You are morally responsible and
evolutionarily accountable for the map you create.

In the problem currently before us John B restated it thus:

1) > According to Roger, as I read him, our only contact with the 'landscape'
is through our dynamic encounter with it. The moment we start to discuss it we
> have left the dynamic for the static, and our discussion is inherently in terms of static,conceptual patterns which are a convenient fiction.

2) > David, though, is not willing to accept this. To him inorganic reality
can and does exist independent of our conceptualizations of it.

I (for reasons obvious in P1 & P2 above) agree with John that:

> I think it is necessary to leave Pirsig for a while to seek a resolution of > this impasse.

but would further suggest that to build any individual map of reality is
mandatory to "leave Pirsig" but that his tools in combination with the tools
of others will allow "Good Maps" to be built.

So when we consider, Roger and David positions, which I will label with
traditional (SOM) terms as forms of Idealism and Realism respectively. (Though
I'm sure they will both cry, FOUL) What can we say about them in MoQ and SOM
terms. The MoQ suggests that the choice of either position is essentially a
moral one. If we exit to Popper he has said that either position is
irrefutable but that since there will be moral consequences of adopting one
position over the other it is worthwhile to try acertain what those
consequences might be and select the one with the "best" moral consequences.
Which might be considered analogous to the MoQ position evolving towards good.

His 1970 lecture on Realism does just this by saying:

"Thus idealism is irrefutable; and this means that, of course, that realism is
indemonstrable. But I am prepared to concede that realism is not only
indemonstratable but, like idealism, irrefutable also; that no describable
event, and no conceivable experience, can be taken as an effective refutation
of realism. Thus there will be in this issue, as in so many, no conclusion
argument. But there are arguments in favor of realism; or rather, against idealism."

Which he then goes on and makes concluding with the quote by Winston Churchill:

"When my metaphysical friends tell me that the data on which the astronomers
made their calculations...were necessarily obtained originally though evidence
on their senses, I say "No". They might, in theory at any rate, be obtained by
automatic calculating-machines set in motion by the light falling upon them
without admixture of the human senses at any stage.. I ...reaffirm with
emphasis.. that the sun is real, and also that it is hot -in fact hot as Hell,
and that if the metaphysicians doubt it they should go there and see."

So to Roger I would ask; Based on your moral decision, is your position a
"good choice" and would you honestly be willing to go to the Sun to prove it?
Or would Pirsig? Or any reasonable person?

Have a sunny day,

DLT

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:53 GMT