Struan,
I've spent a few days working on the phenomenal/noumenal substitution (sorry
about the spelling in the first post, my spellchecker refuses to acknowledge
'noumenal' as a word) and I think I have it, or at least I think I can
answer many of your main criticisms.
The first thing I have to address is the subject line on this email, it's
very misleading... First, as you pointed out, it isn't your syllogism.
Second, as others have pointed out, it isn't really a syllogism. The SODV
paper seems to have neglected to make apparent that this line of reasoning
aborts itself as it goes (and I'll show you how).
I'm going to run throught the argument (as you did) making the
substitiution, and testing along the way to see if it works....
>
> "PIRSIG (w/substitutions):
> "In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things:
[phenoumena],
> [noumena] and Quality.
> Because something is not located in the [noumenal] does not mean that it
has to
> be located in [the phenoumenal].
> Quality cannot be independently derived form either [phenoumena] or
[noumena]. But it
> can be derived from the
> relationship of [phenoumenal] and [noumenal] with each other. Quality
occurs at the point
> at which [phenoumenal] and
> [noumenal] meet. Quality is not a thing. It is an event. It is the event
at
> which the [phenoumenal] becomes
> aware of the [noumenal]. And because without [noumenal] there can be no
[phenoumenal],
> quality is the event at
> which awareness of both [phenoumenal] and [noumenal] is made possible.
Quality is
> not just the result of a
> collision between [phenoumenal] and [noumenal]. The very existence of
[phenoumenal] and
> [noumenal] themselves is deduced
> from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the [phenoumena]
and
> [noumena], which are then
> mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!"
>
> 1)"In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things:
> [phenoumena], [noumena] and Quality."
>
STRUAN:
> OK A presupposition, but we know that. I'm not happy with 'Quality' and
> nobody thinks that subjects and objects are all there is, but that comes
later.
MORE STRUAN:
The simple answer to your question is that the reasoning still fails.
Indeed, I can't make sense of
it past the first sentence, namely; "In the Metaphysics of Quality the world
is composed of three
things: phenomena, noumena and Quality." The problem is that phenomena and
noumena are, by
definition, all encompassing. If quality is accessible by sense perception
then it is phenomenal, if
it is not accessible by means of sense perception then it is noumenal.
Either it is, or it isn't, or
it is a combination of the two. There is no room for a third category
because Kant is talking about
the way humans view the world.
RICK:
1) Hmmm... in the first sentance you say that nobody thinks that subjects
and objects are all there are... but if we substitute (phenoumenal/noumenal)
then we can use your own words (from this second paragraph) to verify that
at least Kant thinks that they are "all encompassing". I believe this
could qualify as circumstancial evidence that this (phen./noum.) was what
RMP was refering to as S/O.... however, you're absolutely right to say that
if the substitution is made there is no room for a third category... it
takes Pirsig a few steps to get there, but let's go on and I'll try and show
you....
>
> 2) "Because something is not located in the [noumenal] does not mean that
it has
> to be located in [the phenoumenal]."
>
STRUAN:
> Agreed. The carpet is really blue but my mind is a 'factor' in that
reality.
> NOTE: A 'factor.' Not,
> 'the only factor', or even, 'the decisive factor.' The 'blueness' is a
> property of the object (UNDER
> AYER'S DEFINITION) but it is also contingent upon the mind therefore:
>
RICK:
We're still in agreement, no?
> 3) "But it can be derived from the relationship of [phenoumenal] and
[noumenal] with each
> other."
>
STRUAN:
> Precisely the point.
RICK:
Still in agreement...
>
> 4) "Quality occurs at the point at which [phenoumenal] and [noumenal]
meet"
>
> 5) "Quality is not a thing. It is an event"
>
STRUAN:
> Of course.
RICK:
You've already agreed to the refutation of your own criticism.... if
"subject/object" is replaced "phenomenal/noumenal" there is NO NEED for a
third category because QUALITY ISN'T A THING... IT'S AN EVENT..... (this
points out one of the abortions in the reasoning.... Line #1 has now been
determined to have been an erroneous supposition---- there is still only
phenoumenal and noumenal.... Quality is just an EVENT involving the two,
somehow.... (watch)....
> 6) "It is the event at which the [phenoumenal] becomes aware of the
[noumenal]."
>
RICK:
Still no need for a third category....
>
> 7) "And because without [the noumenal] there can be no [phenoumenal],
quality is the
> event at which awareness of
> both [phenoumenal] and [noumenal] is made possible."
>
STRUAN:
There is no logical contradiction in postulating mind without matter. The
strong 'a
> priori' argument that
> objects rely upon subjects has vanished completely.
RICK:
Not my way it doesn't, my way the a priori nature of the argument is totally
preserved....
STRUAN:
Notice that this is not
> a question of whether
> mind is contingent upon matter in the sense that it could not have come
into
> being without it, it is
> a question of whether the mind can function without perception of matter.
> Notice also that this does
> not need to be empirically validated (although I suspect it can), the fact
> that it is logically
> possible is enough. The argument collapses at this point.
RICK:
Not my way... If the question is can the Phenoumenal function without
perception of the noumenal... I don't believe that this even logically
possible. Phen/Noum are like yin/yang or subject/object --- they are
defined in relation to each other. Interestingly enough, Pirsig seems to
have omitted the line "because the objects create the subjects awareness of
himself"--- which is found right in the middle of quote #7 in ZMM. If we
read this as "because the [noumenal] world creates the [phenoumenal
subjects] awareness of himself" ---- I think Pirsig is addressing your very
point, it won't work with just Mind/Matter, but it will work with sub/obj or
phen/noum.
>
> 8) "Quality is not just the result of a collision between [phenoumenal]
and
> [noumenal]"
>
STRUAN:
> Hmm . . . . tell me more
>
RICK:
Okay I will... Pirsig is anticipating his next move. If Quality (or X if
you prefer) is to be a monism, then it can't be where s/o or p/n collide,
because a collision implies that the two things are seperate to begin with
and then come together... this has been shown to be impossible (in #7). And
so... QUALITY IS THE EVENT AT WHICH PHENOUMENAL AND NOUMENAL DIVERGE FROM
EACH OTHER!!!! You yourself said, Kant did not claim
that we actually live in both a phenomenal world and a noumenal world,
rather, he claimed that we
can apply these two distinct methodological structures onto a single
undivided world. " And QUALITY is the ACTION of the two diverging from the
one, it isn't a seperate third "THING" or "CATEGORY" it is the "EVENT" or
"ACTION" of the division from the single undivided world. Notice also, this
makes #4 an abortion--- although not #6.
> 9) "The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from
the
> Quality event."
>STRUAN:
> 'Deduced.' It is that 'awareness' thing again. Notice that deduction is
not
> empirical. cf. point 7.
> Can I say, "The very existence of mind and matter themselves is deduced
from
> the Quality event?" Is
> deduced by what? The subject?
RICK:
I believe "deduced" is a poetic term here (not meant in it's formal logical
sense), from the phenoumenal side of the division this would appear to be a
deduction.... but from the "point of view" (excuse this awkward language) of
the single undivided reality, this "deduction" is the "division"--- and so
#9 should read, "The very existence of [phenoumenal] and [noumenal]
themselves is [created by the division of the single undivided reality] at
the Quality moment."
STRUAN:
Pirsig has made the huge jump from, Quality
> being 'derived from the
> relationship of mind and matter,' and occurring, 'AT THE POINT AT WHICH
> SUBJECT AND OBJECT MEET,'
> to:
>
> 10) "The Quality event is the cause of the [phenoumenal] and [noumenal],
which are
> then mistakenly presumed
> to be the cause of the Quality!"
RICK:
That is-- "The [division of the "single undivided reality"] is the cause of
the [phenoumenal] and [noumenal], which are the mistakenly presumed to be
the cause of the [division itself].... I think even Kant would agree with
RMP now.
> STRUAN:
> So how does he make this jump from quality 'being DERIVED from the
> relationship between mind and
> matter' (my emphasis) to it being the CAUSE of mind and matter? The answer
> is that he does it with
> that short sentence in point 7. He does it by sneakily replacing mind and
> matter (which is what he
> is really talking about) with subjects and objects in order to give his
> reasoning veracity."
>
RICK:
But interpreted my way, IMHO, #7 and the entire argument works... As I said
before, I think this interpretation is what Pirsig had in mind... evidence
for it can be found all over.. I included some at the start of this post, I
could give you plenty more if you'd like, but I suspect you'd find it if you
looked yourself.
Now what do you think?
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST