Wim,
Wim Nusselder wrote:
> Dear Scott,
>
> You wrote 20/6 18:41 -1000:
> 'Just for clarity, can we call these [myths Platt mentioned 17/6 8:47
-0400]
> the myths of scientism, rather than science? That lets me respect science
> for what it is good at, and denounce scientism for its bad myths.'
> I hesitate to agree, because I don't think myths are bad. As Platt wrote
> 21/6 16:33 -0400:
> 'no rational pattern of values ... can prove its own validity based
on its
> own assumptions'. Science needs unprovable assumptions. Platt was
right to
> call these 'myths', because they have the same role as myths. It is not
> wrong to have myths, but (relatively) wrong to make them unchangeable
(not
> open to DQ anymore). Maybe you are right if you mean that (making
scientific
> assumption unchanageable) with 'scientism'.
Note that I denounce scientism for its BAD myths. I do not denounce
myths in general, and agree that myths are, practically speaking, pretty
much unavoidable. My objection, like Platt's, is to these particular
myths, which science does not need. They are metaphysical assumptions,
not scientific. And they tend to produce bad science, or rather,
metaphysics masquerading as science.
>
> The kind of postmodernist you describe, that 'wants to drop the idea of
> "objective reality" entirely', may be closer to a MoQ than to SOM, except
> that in a MoQ 'objective reality' is not dropped, but given equal (static
> quality) status as 'subjective reality'.
Here we have a terminological difficulty. In MoQ, "objective reality" is
the set of inorganic and biological static quality patterns. That's
fine, but in modern philosophical discourse, "objective reality" has
come to mean "that true reality which our thinking and perceiving is
trying to grasp". That is, it is seen as a realm of being separate from
our thinking and perceiving of it. This position is called "realism",
and this what Rorty et al want to see dropped, because it serves no
useful purpose.
>
> You wrote:
> 'I regard MOQ as postmodern, because it denies ... that reality IS
something
> ponderable. Rather, when we ponder, we are pondering static patterns of
> quality, but not Quality.'
> As Quality is subdivided in static quality and Dynamic Quality by Pirsig,
> I'd say that when we are pondering static patterns of quality, we ARE
> pondering (part of) Quality. (And those 'unexpected leaps' 'our pondering
> can take', which you equate with DQ, can't we ponder that part of Quality
> too?) As Pirsig equates reality and Quality, I wouldn't say that a MoQ
> denies the ponderability of reality either.
> So ... I still don't consider myself a postmodernist, even if the
ideas of
> Rorty as you describe them do seem valuable to me.
More terminological difficulties. I have no problem in everyday
discourse in saying that some things are real, and some are not, that
there are facts and falsehoods -- the kind of "trying to determine what
really happened" in, say, a court of law. But in doing metaphysics, I
find that
the word "real" serves no purpose (with one exception that I will get to
later). So I would say that nothing of metaphysical value is added by
saying that the static patterns of quality that we think about have some
reality status beyond our thinking about them. This sounds like
Idealism, but that is because in SOM, if they aren't "objectively real"
(in the "realism" sense -- see above, not in the MoQ sense), then they
must be "just in my head". But it is important to find a way to say this
without being mistaken for an idealist (or a nihilist) as opposed to a
realist, and that is, in my opinion, what Rorty is trying to do.
The way I approach this problem is by adapting the MoQ somewhat, as
follows:
The exception I referred to earlier is that I think it is of paramount
importance to say that Quality is real, and ONLY Quality is real
(remember: I've got my metaphysical hat on, and also, Quality may have
other names). Everything else is a
pattern created be Quality, and every pattern has two "sides", its DQ
side and its sq side. In our current stage of consciousness, this comes
out as a subject being aware of an object, and as an event occurring in
space and time. However, consciousness is variable, and other stages of
consciousness have existed, do exist, and will come to exist, when this
way that Quality creates patterns is different, and so the patterns are
different. Thus, it is correct to say that everything EXCEPT Quality is
contingent. (Note: one could also say that Quality is absolutely real
and all patterns are contingently real, but I figure in metaphysics,
"contingently real" is somewhat of an oxymoron). Two notes: (1) I am
sure Rorty would not agree with this, and (2), the Buddhists, as usual,
got here long ago, when they say that everything lacks self-existence.
I say we cannot ponder Quality, or DQ, in the sense that we cannot make
them objects of pondering, since DQ lies in the pondering, and not that
which is pondered. If (see my post to Bo) we learn to think
non-objectively, this "problem" might vanish.
By the way, another book I've mentioned a couple of times claims that
such an elevated kind of thinking (if that is still the right word) can
occur. It is in Franklin Merrell-Wolff's "Philosophy of
Consciousness-Without-An-Object", where he calls it "introception".
There is also something like this discussed in the books of Georg
Kuhlewind, e.g., "Stages of Consciousness"
>
> I prefer astrology to the enneagram, because 10 subconscious motives
> (symbolized by 8 planets, sun and moon) expressing themselves through 12
> types of filters (symbolized by 12 signs of the zodiac) in 12 aspects of
> life (symbolized by 12 houses or segments of the sky) enable me to
paint a
> more complex picture of an unique human being than only 9 segments of an
> enneagram.
I realize now that I should not have said that I "prefer" the enneagram,
as clearly I do not know enough about astrology as a personality
typology to have made a proper comparison. All I do know is that the
enneagram accurately describes my type, and that of others.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:20 BST