Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sun, 1 Feb 1998 17:56:31 +0100
Platt Holden wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> > > Catch 32: Words cannot really describe reality because the words
> > > we use to describe reality are part of the reality we're trying
> > > to describe.
> > >
...
> > >
> > > --
> > Platt,
> >
...
> >
> > If catch 32 is a good catch, to me, then it implies that
> > there is no way to build a metaphor of reality. I disagree
> > with that conclusion. Clearly we use SPoVs all the time to
> > bootstrap higher intellectual patterns as part of our
> > attempts to understand reality.
> >
> > Did I miss something?
> >
> > Mtty,
> >
> > Doug Renselle.
>
> Well, I'm a bit surprised that one as familiar with quantum mechanics
> as
> you questions Catch 32. At the quantum level, all dualisms such as
...
>
> Platt
>
Platt,
I agree with your rebuttal, however, it does not appear to address the
point.
My original statement was: "If catch 32 is a good catch, to me, then it
implies that there is no way to build a metaphor of reality." The way
it is now it says Pirsig DID waste his time trying to describe reality
in words. I doubt any member of TLS would agree with that.
Notice the last five words of my original statement. I was not speaking
of the wholly unknowable, REAL reality. I was speaking of a metaphor,
description, or analogy of reality.
Again, your Catch 32: Words cannot really describe reality because the
words we use to describe reality are part of the reality we're trying to
describe.
Does the phrase 'describe reality' imply a metaphor? I think it does.
If that is true, then Catch 32 says we cannot build a metaphor of
reality. I disagree with that conclusion. Words CAN build a metaphor
of reality. That is precisely what MoQ does! That is what Pirsig did!
We know it is incomplete, uncertain, etc. But we have a metaphor that
is better than others upon which we can build until a better one comes
along.
Everything else you said in your rebuttal, I agree with. I hope you do
not think I am being difficult. I love the Catches. They make the MoQ
a lot more fun. Even this discussion is fun. I think you catches
should all be good ones. To me, this one misleads.
For further clarification, I agree that no words or symbols or SPoVs are
capable of defining the whole of existence. A description is an
analogy, IMO. Descriptions are models, thus incomplete, uncertain, all
the things you said.
Thanks for sticking with me on this one, Platt.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
> Catch 35: If I have a fly in my eye, how can I see that I have a fly
> in my
> eye?
>
-- "Socrates himself says it is an analogy...Everything is an analogy. But the dialecticians don't know that."By Robert M. Pirsig, in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' pp. 351-2, Bantam (paperback), 28th edition, 1982.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:46 CEST