<004801bff6ce$61149d20$bcac003e@jonathan>
Subject: Re: MF Science or Emotivism? The answer is MU
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:43:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
Hey Jon,
Good stuff....
> > RICK:
> > This "evaluation" of the primary preintellectual reality is what I
> believe
> > Pirsig has isolated as the Q-event....
>
JON:
> On first reading I agreed with you, but now don't. The "evaluation" is
> ongoing, not an event. It then becomes part of the reality subject to
> further evaluation. The "preintellectual" is a Genesis, but you can't
> say wher it ends. By analogy, if physicists can still hear
> reverberations of the Big Bang, that means it is still banging, an
> ongoing creation process.
RICK:
Okay, good point. But is this first sentance to mean that you don't agree
that what I wrote is how Pirsig sees it, or that what I wrote is on with
Pirsig and you now disagree with him?
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
> >
> > JON:
...the cutting edge doesn't exist without the knife. There's no
> edge without a knife, and no knife without the cutting edge.
RICK:
Another excellent point. Or more specifically, another excellent ANALOGY.
And speaking of analogy....
JON:
The fact that some Hindu professor called the suffering produced by the
A-bomb
> "illusory" IMHO has nothing to do with my argument that a question
> posing a choice between Science and Emotivism needs to be unasked.
RICK:
There is a strong analogy between the Hindu professor and your comments,
namely that in both cases a rational question was responded to with an
answer from a foriegn context. That's why the Hindu professor's comment had
no value for Pirsig and why "MU" has no value for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
RICK:
Yes, that's what I meant. Your answer wasn't "baseless garbage", it
just belonged to a different philosophical context than my question and
therefore has no real value as answer. While the term "MU" may work well
for
the Zen masters, it has no place in rational discussion.
JON:
....I disagree, especially because of my background in scientific research.
> Sometimes, a question itself is prejorative - to answer it is to accept
> some unspoken premise.
RICK:
And MU is the answer??? Now I disagree, especially because of my background
in rhetoric (dropping credentials is also rhetorical and emotive). Answering
a rational question with a MU is like answering a scientific question by
saying "Because it's God's will...." The same way religion has no place in
science, MU has no place in rationality. Besides, the question this month is
"How can we discern the proper level for any respective patten?" And you say
the answer is "MU"???? Where's the unspoken premise that you don't agree
with??? And if there is such a premise, then why not expose it and deal with
it head on rather than "MU"ving around it???
JON:
Einstein answered MU to the big question of his
> day, "Is light a wave, or a stream of particles?". When Phaedrus was
> asked, "Is this quality of yours subjective or objective?" he answered
> MU.
RICK:
When Phadrus was asked the question you refer to above he did not respond
MU... he responded 'neither'. He asserted that Quality was the source of
subjects and objects and therefore didn't belong to either category... he
exposed the assumption, and explained himself. I don't remember what
exactly Einstein said about waves and particles, but I don't believe he ever
actually "Mu"ed.
Furthermore, I find it strange that you reject my analogy to the Hindu
professor because it is "empty" and has nothing to do with your argument
that a question posing a choice between Science and Emotivism needs to be
unasked... but you don't mind making some of your own rhetorical analogies
(Einstein, Pirsig) to support your own argument.
But more importantly, I have been hard at work trying to design a website to
support the project I described in the post "Working Backwards...." from
several weeks ago. Diana and Bo have both expressed interest in the project
and if I can get it off the ground, I hope I can count on your help in
taking some steps forward.
Rick
The wonderful thing about tiggers,
is that tiggers are wonderful things.
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST