Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:03:32 +0100
Hi Horse and LS:
HORSE:
Yes I accept that categories do exist, even if they are little more than
intellectual constructions.
Do you also accept that categories are real? When you say they 'exist,' I'm
not sure whether you mean they exist as imaginary creatures, like centaurs
and fairies, or exist as real things like horses and butterflies. If I
interpret Pirsig correctly, intellectual constructions are what make up the
intellectual level and are as real as rocks, worms and words. Is this your
understanding, too?
HORSE:
Reality has no absolutes.
Is that an absolute or fuzzy intellectual construction? If absolute, and if
intellectual constructions are real, the statement contradicts itself.
HORSE:
The law of identity - A is A - as a logical statement, means that this must
be true in all possible worlds. As neither you nor I have access to all
possible worlds the validity of the statement cannot be proven, but given a
particular frame of reference it makes sense.
Well, the frame of reference I'm most interested in and use most of the
time is this world, and I'm happy you agree that A is A makes sense here. I
was beginning to wonder.
HORSE:
I'm not saying that the foundations of multivalent logic are absolutely
consistent and complete as this is contradictory (Russells Theorem I think,
answered by Godel) but it has a higher degree of consistency and
completeness than binary logic.
Yes, I agree that multivalent logic is a higher quality intellectual
construction than binary logic alone. I just don't want to throw out the
baby with the bath water. When a truck is bearing down on me, binary logic
comes in mighty handy – it's either me or the truck. Also, unless you have
the extremes represented by binary logic, you wouldn't have the gray matter
of fuzzy logic in between. Fuzzy logic presumes binary logic; you can't
have one without the other.
HORSE:
And as for self-evident truths, why don't you apply this to Phlogiston and
see how self evident that particular truth was.
What's Phlogiston? Is it on the same level as the Declaration of
Independence, the social level? If not, the question is mute. Each level
contains its own 'truths' not found on levels below.
HORSE:
There is no such thing as an absolute truth -- ...
According to the statement, the statement is not absolutely true and
therefore I can take it with a grain of salt, which I do.
HORSE:
But absolute death, as I see it, doesn't exist only death of the person
(intellectual and social). Everything else gets recycled.
For someone who doesn't believe in absolutes you continue to make absolute
statements, one right after another. As for death, it's 'the person' in
this world I value (including myself), not the leftovers that get recycled
in another.
HORSE:
So in other words we should dump MoQ in favor of SOM. SOM is well defined
and acceptable to the majority. From what you have said above it contains
all the absolutes and definitions necessary, in an SOM world, for the
continuation of that SOM world. Why should the Lila Squad bother to go
against the grain and fight for the MoQ.
First, Pirsig said. "This may sound as though the purpose of the
Metaphysics of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought, but that's
not true." (Lila, Chap.8)
Second, Pirsig said. "There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel
around, he thought, but the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst.
Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any
expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too. They use the
morals to make someone else look inferior and that way look better
themselves. It doesn't matter what the moral code is -- religious morals,
political morals, racist morals. capitalist morals, feminist morals, hippie
morals -- they're all the same. The moral codes change but the meanness and
the egotism stay the same." (Lila, Chap. 7) So yes, I want to continue the
SOM world for the value it contains, and no, I didn't join the Lila Squad
to fight for the MoQ. I'm not out to change the world. I don't pretend to
know what's better for other people, except freedom from people out to
change the world. I don't want to become another Rigel. Explain yes, fight
no.
HORSE: Many people seem to be convinced that the western view is the only
true view of the world and that any other view is just plain silly or
wrong. Hence the denigration of 'mystical' because it doesn't conform to
the strict limitations and boundaries that western belief imposes. This is
an outcome of the rigidity that you seem to champion. The A or not A SOM
way of thinking.
The rigidity of your view is exemplified by numerous categorical statements
such as "There are no absolutes." Further, I suggest that Lila is primarily
an SOM document, that our posts are also largely cast in SOM thought, and
that the intellectual level is, as Bo asserts, the SOM level where A or not
A reigns supreme.
This becomes evident in reading the posts submitted by those on the Squad
of a scientific bent who usually make an A or not A distinction between
"map and territory," furthering the widely held assumption that the world
"out there" of objects exists independently of us and is more "real" than
our descriptions of it which are "subjective" unless they are "scientific."
This, of course, is pure SOM. In contrast, Pirsig says that descriptions
are intellectual value patterns (just as real as inorganic, biological and
social patterns) and that these intellectual patterns are of high or low
quality, depending, upon other things, their "logical consistency,
agreement with experience and economy of explanation."
Well, I consider our discussion at least somewhat dynamic although how much
quality is involved is questionable. Nevertheless, I enjoy it thoroughly
which for me is a good measure of value. Looking forward to hearing from
you again.
Platt
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST