From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Dec 22 2004 - 23:57:38 GMT
Hi Paul and all,
paul:
In terms of Mark's question, and DMB's reply, I have some thoughts
and some quotes from Pirsig which may help although I think David's
answer is about right anyway.
MSH said:
Yes, this comment has always troubled me. "The world has no existence
whatsoever outside the human imagination." Is Pirsig an Idealist or
an empiricist or what? I can see how the laws of nature and logic
might be said to exist in our imaginations, but everything? Is this
just some poetic enthusiasm from way back, near the beginning of ZMM,
to support the ol' ghosts around the campfire setting? What do y'all
think he means? Is there something OUT THERE, or not?
paul:
However, in answer to your question, the MOQ calls itself pure
empiricism and starts with the premise that the "something that is
there" is sense data but refers to the source of this sense data,
prior to any intellectual differentiation, as Dynamic Quality.
msh says:
Right. So the sense data have a "source" i.e. DQ. There is
something "there" but, so far, we have no definitive answer as to
whether the "source," DQ, has a "location," internal to the sentient,
external, or ... "
paul continues...
The thing is, even to talk of "experience" or "sense data" is to make
intellectual differentiations which, strictly speaking, is no longer
pure empiricism.
msh says:
Ok, In ZMM, we're talking pure empiricism, with the "source" of
sense data deliberately undefined. It might be internal, external,
or...? In LILA (and the MOQ) we've already degenerated from pure
empiricism into metaphysical discussion, so I take it it is fair to
ask questions, and make propositional statements, about this
"source."
<snip Northrop and other understood, agreed stuff>
paul continues:
In this respect, Pirsig recently had this to say about the
relationship between sense data and value in the MOQ:
"...propositionally speaking, experience is sense data but the sense
data has already been preselected by quality. We are flooded with
far more sense data all the time than we can possibly absorb. We do
not, for example, sense even our own eye-blinks although our whole
field of vision goes dark when they occur. These eye-blinks are not
sensed because they are not valued. So the MOQ is strictly empiricist
but it says all sense data is valued sense data. Scientifically
speaking, that which cannot be distinguished from anything else does
not exist. The MOQ says that which is not valued either positively or
negatively is not distinguished from anything else. Therefore sense
data that is devoid of value does not exist." [Pirsig to McWatt,
2004]
msh says:
Here he says there is a "flood" of sense data, some of which is
preselected by DQ. That is, he seems to be saying there are two kinds
of sense data, some valuable and some not. So DQ works like a
sieve, filtering out all the valueless sense data? Or DQ sorts the
data, assigning value to some of it but not all? If so, it seems
fair to ask about the source of the valueless sense data, and what
happens to it after it is DQ rejected. Or is it that there really is
no mixed flood of valuable and valueless sense data, but only sense
data presented (created?) by DQ for our enjoyment, all of it
valuable?
<snip mind-first/matter-first question, as the answer seems to be
that we choose one or the other depending on the nature of the
problem we hope to analyse and explain. This I understand and agree
with. But then comes...>
pirsig to McWatt via paul:
The MOQ says it is the unnamable source of these valuations that
comes first, not mind or matter. It calls this unnamable source
"Dynamic Quality" for purposes of intellectual reference, but
carefully avoids defining it." [Pirsig to McWatt, 1999]
msh says:
Ok. Here's the rub. If DQ comes before both mind and matter then it
must be external to both. That is, DQ, at least, must be "out there"
independent of any sentient. Since he has already degenerated into
metaphysical speculation, I think it's fair to require him to take a
stand regarding this issue. At this point, it's too late to
honestly avoid the issue by claiming that DQ is a "mystical" entity
and can't be defined. At least, IMHO.
paul continues:
Basically, the MOQ says that the "external world" is often the
highest quality pattern of intellectual knowledge we have to handle
and explain sense data but it remains no more than an extremely good
hypothesis. Furthermore, seeing as the external world is *deduced
from* sense experience it seems incorrect to presume that it is the
*source of* the sense experience. I find that this statement from
Pirsig is a neat summary of his position.
msh says:
Understood. Agreed. But this still avoids the question of the
"location" of DQ as the "source of" sense experience. As does the
following, which I find valuable but incomplete, as described above.
pirsig to McWatt via paul:
"I think that science is simply the best interpretation that can be
made of sense data and can function without a faith in an external
objective world. I also think that religion is the best
interpretation that can be made of sense data and can function
without a faith in an external deity. Sense data is reality enough.
It is easy for scientifically trained people to see that an external
deity that creates everything is just an imaginary being sustained by
social tradition. It is much more difficult to see that an external
objective world that creates everything is also just an imaginary
being sustained by social tradition.
The Metaphysics of Quality is a third conjecture that can be made
about the source of sense data. It does not contradict a deityless
religion such as Buddhism. It does not contradict an objectless
interpretation of science" [Pirsig to McWatt, 1999]
msh says:
I agree with all of this. Please understand that I find the moral
hierarchy of the MOQ to be extremely valuable in my miniscule
attempts to make the world a place of higher quality for all. But I
also think that Pirsig's metaphysics, once he has defined it, cannot
be immunized against criticism by claiming that DQ cannot be defined.
Even if, especially if, that criticism comes from the so-called
establishment philosophers. Pirsig elected to play their game,
remember.
Thanks to all for any help here,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 00:05:00 GMT