From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 05:25:59 BST
Hi Sam --
> I would agree that the concern to make the MoQ 'empirical from head to
toe'
> is a mistake. But I am doing some work on justifying precisely how and
why,
> so I won't pre-empt that here.
>
> Pirsig is trying to save value from the scientists. (In just the same way
as
> Schleiermacher was trying to save religion from the Kantians..... )
Your wording in both statements is somewhat ambiguous. My comment wasn't
that the MoQ should be or, even could be, totally empirical; it simply
isn't. Why would you want to "justify" making a philosophy that has already
been expounded appear to be something that it is not? Short of
manipulation with smoke and mirrors, I don't even understand how that's
possible.
I presume your use of "save", in the second clip above, is intended to mean
"protect". While I can understand how Schleiermacher could conceivably have
been protecting religious beliefs from Kant's rationalism, I don't see that
scientism has ever cornered the "value market". Scientists aren't putting
values down, they simply don't recognize qualitative values as a legitimate
object of scientific investigation.
There's no doubt in my mind that Mr. Pirsig wished to characterize his
philosophy as empirical-based. He has stated so numerous times in his SODV
paper and novels. In fact, his concern that Quality (or Essence) might not
be acceptable to the logical positivists is quite evident in his July, 2004
reply to my enquiry letter:
"My problem with 'essence' is not that it isn't there or that it is not the
same as Quality. It is that positivists usually deny 'essence' as something
like 'God' or 'the absolute' and dismiss it [as] experimentally
unverifiable,
which is to say they think you are some kind of religious nut. The advantage
of Quality is that it cannot be dismissed as unverifiable without falling
into absurdity. The positivist cannot say, for example, that his experiments
have no value, or that he does not think that anything is better, or worse,
that is, of more or less value, than anything else."
The author's desire is wishful thinking, however, because qualitative
attributes are precisely what the methodology of logical positivism does not
allow.
> As for whether it is possible for a believer to have a cavalier attitude
to cardinal
> beliefs, I would just repeat what I said before about there being a great
variety of
> belief possible *within* Christianity.
>
> I'm happier with philosophy as a wisdom tradition than
> something based on 'logic, reason and sensibility'. I think that's too
much
> of a commitment to Western forms (like SOM).
Again, such statements suggest to me that you don't put much stock in
philosophy as a rational approach to truth -- or religion either, for that
matter. From what you've said, I take it that you'd consider yourself an
eclectic who seeks 'words of wisdom' wherever they may be found. Not that
there's anything wrong with that (unless, of course, it fails to satisfy
your parishioners ;-), but I do think it falls under what RMP
rather disdainfully called "philosophology".
Anyway, I appreciate your candor in response to my question about your
philosophical position.
Best regards,
Ham
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 Apr 14 2005 - 05:33:30 BST