From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 15:01:48 BST
Hi Paul
> Paul said:
> I'm not saying that the propositions of the MOQ cannot be expressed with
> philosophical correctness. What I mean is that everyday statements, in
> everyday use, such as, "I sat on a hot stove and it was painful," need not
> be changed because, even though they express metaphysical assumptions which
> the MOQ denies, the outcome is generally the same. I just think you cannot
> use such everyday statements in a philosophical argument as if the
> statement is a de facto representation of reality, which is what you seemed
> to be doing.
I guess I haven't made myself clear. I have no argument with Pirsig's
proposition that a subject is not the starting point of experience. I am
arguing that by using the word "experience," which in common, everyday
meaning conveys the idea of a subject having an experience, Pirsig is
unnecessarily muddying his philosophy. As I suggested, if he were to use
"Quality event" as the starting point of the MOQ, then positioning his
examples, like the hot stove anecdote, as a "low Quality" event might make
it easier for readers to relate to his overall philosophy. Most people can
accept that Quality events can take place without a human being
experiencing them, like the entire process of evolution up to the
emergence of human beings with their chattering, observational,
linguistic ways.
> When analysing something philosophically, then the assumptions made by the
> MOQ need to be introduced and more carefully constructed. Even then, once
> the MOQ assumptions are understood by all parties I think everyday language
> can be used to a degree to relay the ideas more easily, as is done in LILA.
> Pirsig says something in LILA about the problem of "having to resolve
> metaphysical disputes at the end of every sentence" when a basic
> understanding of metaphysical terms and assumptions hasn't been achieved
> prior to discussion.
All I'm suggesting is that the MOQ would "sell" more easily if its basic
assumption was phrased differently. Of course, I could be wrong. But isn't
one of the purposes of MOQ discuss to suggest possible improvements to the
MOQ? I think it would be better if Pirsig had come right out and said, "My
initial assumption for my metaphysics is that reality is moral, created
and sustained by Quality events."
> Perhaps we have not found the balance yet with our discussions of the
> MOQ?
I hope this post helps clarify my position. Since we both agree that
Quality comes prior to subjects, perhaps we have found ourselves on common
ground if not completely "balanced." :-)
> P.S. Other philosophers have suggested major changes to language. E.g.
> David Bohm proposed something called "rheomode." Doug Renselle
> (quantonics.com) has started a "language remediation" section on his
> website. Personally, I think this puts even more of a wall around the
> ideas, which is what I mean when I say that tangling everyday language with
> the sometimes technical language of philosophy may reduce the value of both
> - you lose the ability of everyday communication and make your ideas
> impenetrable.
I couldn't agree more. Academics especially seem to believe their ideas
carry more weight if they invent new words. Mostly they just create and
pump out more fog.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 19 2004 - 15:15:42 BST