Hi everyone,
For several days I have been thinking about replying to Kenneth's
article, and about why I think that basing any idea on solipsism cannot
lead to any useful philosophy.
However, before I present the argument, I see an urgent need to respond
to the discussion that arose from Pirsig's letter. I see a great danger
that the way the current discussion is going will mess up anything I
have to say on memetics, solipsism or anything else. Thus, it is time to
take the bull by the horns.
Let's start with this:
BODVAR
+ADwAPAA8-Many philosophers (or the modern variant: +ACI-science-writers+ACI-)
have forward theories of how reality works, but not one has gone at
the root of what Pirsig calls SOM. Why? Because no-one
has identified any subject/object METAPHYSICS. Don't
misunderstand me. All start by attacking the mind/matter duality.
It's ALL WRONG they claim: reality is not divided, it is whole, it is
X or Y or whatever. This is the idealist half. The other camp also
claims that reality is one, but now everything is fallouts
of matter+ADs- mind an extraordinary complicated matter
case. +AD4APgA+-
Bodvar, I think you do all of us (including Pirsig) a great disservice
here. IMO the great value of Pirsig's two novels is NOT that they say
something completely different from everyone else, but that they find a
common theme that may UNITE what everyone else is saying. Pirsig adds
very few footnotes to cross-reference other thinkers. One can be
critical and say that this reflects his ignorance or his laziness, or
one can be more understanding and praise Pirsig for not bombarding us
with an enormous reading list. I tend to the latter opinion, but that
does not mean that no-one else has written anything relevant.
IMO, Bodvar's biggest mistake is in assuming that by coming up with the
name +ACI-Subject-Object Metaphysics+ACI-, Pirsig is the first to recognise the
phenomenon.
As DAVID PRINCE so aptly reminds us:
+AD4-So the point of that +AHs-Zen koan+AF0- exercise is the
+AD4-understanding that words do not contain
+AD4-all the data. . . .
Pirsig is certainly entitled to create a terminology and a hierarchy,
following from the great master of that technique, Aristotle +AFs-Bo, that
was intended to shock you+AF0-.
However, the value is not in the name (SOM - uniquely Pirsigian), but in
the concept (ubiquitous).
Bringing up the name Aristotle brings me on to my next point. Aristotle
was the first to use the phrase Metaphysics. If Physics describes
nature, (from the Greek root), then +ACI-metaphysics+ACI- can be considered the
+ACI-NATURE of NATURE+ACI-. The flaw that Pirsig seems to bring up is our modern
philosophy that divides mind and matter so that the nature of matter is
considered quite different from the nature of mind.
This leads to the objective logical positivist position that reality is
grounded in matter vs. the solipsist position that reality is grounded
in mind.
Having said that, I can now address the solipsism issue. I think the
best place to start is with Descartes +ACI-I think therefore I am+ACI-. I
understand this as a fundamental recognition that the only mind that I
can properly identify with is my own. My self and my consciousness are
intertwined in a unique way.
The ultimate solipsist position is that this mind of mine creates from
nothing everything I experience and know. This is logically completely
consistent, but raises many questions. Why do I perceive restrictions
of what my mind can create? Why can't I create paradise to live in? Why
should my mind bother to create novels and movies that present +ACI-untrue+ACI-
alternatives to +ACI-real+ACI- life (which is much richer and more dynamic)?
I think that solipsism raises an infinite number of such questions and
provides no explanations. However, IMO, the biggest put down of
solipsism is that it seems quite futile. Why bother with anything at all
if it is all just an invention of my mind. How can I respect other
people when they are just my own inventions?
Thus, I completely and utterly reject solipsism because it totally
undermines all philosophy and all morality.
I should add, that probably there are no true solipsists (and if there
were, they wouldn't bother telling us about it)
Having rejected solipsism, I have to present an alternative. The
position I take is that while I only really know my own self, I can
project my experiences to other selves. I assume that the rest of you
share similar life experiences and thoughts, and we also share a common
curiosity about how to explain and understand things.
Some take a logical positivist position that all is the workings of
matter (quantum mechanics, relativity, genetics, biochemistry and
neurons, etc.). I prefer to regard all these material explanations as
editing tools that enable us to digest experience.
Reality as we +ACI-know+ACI- it is edited - the Hindu's would call it Maya. Some
claim that there is some external absolute reality out there (Brahman).
However, we have no way of evaluating the fidelity of the editor.
Perhaps all we can hope to do is pick the editing tools that produce the
greatest degree of comprehension and harmony.
I deliberately picked the word +ACI-harmony+ACI- because of the
discussion on Pirsig's recent letter.
PIRSIG:
+ACI-...The question of +ACI-How do you justify the statement that Quality
equals
reality?+ACI- was the best +AFs-criticism+AF0-. The correct answer from a MOQ
perspective is, +ACI-by the harmony it produces+ACI-...+ACI-
The answer is tautological. What is harmony if it isn't quality?
That is not a criticism, but the opposite. IMO reducing things to
tautology uncovers truisms. What other answer could Pirsig give?
Furthermore, Pirsig's answer is IMHO just another formulation of Occam's
razor.
With all these thoughts, it has been very hard to focus on Kenneth's
impressive article, and I've yet to read it in depth. Meanwhile, it may
suffice just to comment on this:
KENNETH (to Bodvar)
+ADwAPAA8-I think you look to much on the meme- issue, where in my opinion you
have to look upon the solipsism stance. That is what interests me, are
memes solipsistic in nature +ACE-?
Yes, ok, tell me more +ACE-
No, tell me why +ACEAPgA+AD4-
Would it be helpful to stop using the term solipsism and switch to
SELFISHNESS.
Selfish Genes/ Selfish Memes - these are just expressions of the quest
for self survival. As the great Rabbi Hillel said 2 millennia ago:
+ACI-If I am not for myself, then who is for me.
If I am only for myself, then what am I.
If not now, when.+ACI-
Jonathan
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 - 16:00:50 BST