From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 22:25:34 GMT
On 1 February 2005 5: 15 PM Joe responds to Ham:
> I don't know that Pirsig uses the term pure experience. He does write in
> Lila: "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
> intellectual abstractions." Lila chapter 5.
If "pure experience" is not part of any known philospopher's terminology,
how do you distinguish it from ordinary experience? In other words, what is
its significance to epistemology?
Ham said:
> What piqued my interest was the distinction noted by Scott, and echoed
> by all of you, between appearance and reality. I find it strange that
there
> seems to be no support in this discussion for the proposition that
> appearance IS reality. Would that not be the true empirical view --
> including the view of MoQ whose author claims an empirical foundation?
Joe answered:
> For me language is a toolbox for communicating. Logic is used to
> describe appearance. Analogy is used to focus my attention on direct or
> mystical experience.
What is your definition of mystical experience? What if I said it was all
"mystical"?
> Metaphor is used to indicate order or show my belief.
> IMO metaphor describes an order. The way I recognize order is in the
denial
> of existence, no order. Pirsig posits a social order of evolution based on
> organic evolution from inorganic evolution. I see that order in terms of
> existence. IMO "Appearance is reality" is a dogma of faith, as there is
not
> any order in the existence of 'reality' except by analogy. If 'appearance
is
> like reality' is used, then I am focused on the direct experience of
quality
> and I can agree or disagree that is my experience. It is in terms of
analogy
> or the mystical that I use "evolutionary analogue". IMO evolution in time
> follows an evolution in Quality.
By "order", do you mean priority -- as in a sequence? Or are you referring
to the evolutionary process in general? If the latter, then anyone who
subscribes to Kantian theory would argue, as I do, that "process'', like all
change, is an illusion caused by the rational mind's inability to experience
all events at once (or all things as one). That is what I mean by an
"intellectual construct". It's also why I'm suggesting that finite
experience may be illusory -- or, perhaps, "mystical?"
Ham said:
> The reality of essentialism is Essence, which (I assume) qualifies as your
> "Analogue".
Joe responds:
> I do not see Essence used in this way as an analogy, but rather as a
> social metaphor indicating an unknowable limit in the social order or as a
> dogma of faith.
To describe the key element of my philosophy as a "social metaphor" hardly
does it justice. Would you describe Pirisig's Quality as a
"socio-biological metaphor"? These are "belief systems", Joe, not computer
word games!
I'm sorry, but I don't see your analogue logic as anything but a meaningless
crossword puzzle.
Regards.
Ham
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 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 22:28:14 GMT