Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:05:21 +0100
Hi Doug,
Doug wrote:
> I agree with your rebuttal, however, it does not appear to address the
> point.
>
> My original statement was: "If catch 32 is a good catch, to me, then it
> implies that there is no way to build a metaphor of reality." The way
> it is now it says Pirsig DID waste his time trying to describe reality
> in words. I doubt any member of TLS would agree with that.
>
> Notice the last five words of my original statement. I was not speaking
> of the wholly unknowable, REAL reality. I was speaking of a metaphor,
> description, or analogy of reality.
>
> Again, your Catch 32: Words cannot really describe reality because the
> words we use to describe reality are part of the reality we're trying to
> describe.
>
> Does the phrase 'describe reality' imply a metaphor? I think it does.
>
> If that is true, then Catch 32 says we cannot build a metaphor of
> reality. I disagree with that conclusion. Words CAN build a metaphor
> of reality. That is precisely what MoQ does! That is what Pirsig did!
> We know it is incomplete, uncertain, etc. But we have a metaphor that
> is better than others upon which we can build until a better one comes
> along.
>
> Everything else you said in your rebuttal, I agree with. I hope you do
> not think I am being difficult. I love the Catches. They make the MoQ
> a lot more fun. Even this discussion is fun. I think you catches
> should all be good ones. To me, this one misleads.
>
> For further clarification, I agree that no words or symbols or SPoVs are
> capable of defining the whole of existence. A description is an
> analogy, IMO. Descriptions are models, thus incomplete, uncertain, all
> the things you said.
>
> Thanks for sticking with me on this one, Platt.
I tried to avoid your valid objection to Catch 32 by including 'really
describe' to suggest that while descriptions are possible they can never be
complete. This was a mistake on my part to assume that 'really' would carry
the meaning of 'completely.' If I substitute the word 'completely' for
'really' would that make the Catch OK? Or should I drop it all together for
the reasons you cite? Believe me, I'm not married to Catch 32.
In any case, I certainly don't think you're being difficult. I enjoy these
discussions, too. Besides being fun, I always learn something from them.
Platt
Catch 36: That the rational is real is not rationally demonstrable. (Thanks
to German philosopher Hegel.)
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:46 CEST