Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 26 Feb 1998 03:37:07 +0100
Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:39:43 +0000
Donald T Palmgren wrote:
> Could be. Personally I see this -ism partisianship as a result
> of the Church of Reason -- the school system we are all churned through as
> if it were some great sassage machine -- *programing* us to see a question
> as an unfinished answer, a blank to be filled in, either correctly or
> incorectly. I'm frequently told by people who insist that Good is more
> real that Truth that what I say is false. (I fear they miss the irony.)
> Perhaps idealistically I hoped that Pirsig supporters would be raving
> individualist and radically iconoclastic -- like the man himself, but I
> sense a desire to found a church in his wake (and the man not yet dead).
> Oh well. (Has anyone beside me thought that insted of "Principals"
> maybe we should have "pointers" or "guidelines" or "prefatory thoughts"
> or something?)
Donny.
Don't feel snubbed by our defence of Pirsigs ideas. It is the
necessary static latching mechanism at work. How could any idea find
foothold if no one latches on to it? But we also need a "devil's
advocate" to test the strength of the said latches.
You say that you had expected to find raving individualists and
radical iconoclasts...I think we are. As Jason says, have we had our
fights over the viability of this and that aspect of the MOQ,
but when one finds that a particular theory passes all "litmus" tests
that one can concoct, well, then it is a bit tall to face the demand
of aimlessly criticize the idea for the sake of being iconoclastic.
Personally I haven't refrained from criticizing Pirsig. I am not very
fond of the "Subjects, Objects, Data and Value" paper, particularly
the lumping together of Inorganic and Biological as "objective" and
Society and Intellect as "subjective". I know that Pirsig here goes
to great lengths to meet an audience of quality ignorants.
Also, I have had my share of doubts regarding the viability of
the Quality idea and have told about it. For you I will repeat the
worst one. The rest of the Squad may take a break now :-).
Pirsig claims that his metaphysics is a better
map of reality than the Subject/Object one, but then; what is the
reality he appeals to? (see footnote). It dawned on me that we were
back at the Kantian "Ding an Sich". The ghostly "objective reality"
from which we derive our subjective perception, and of what we can
form so many theories? From a correspondent with a degree in physics
I got a very useful tip. He suggested a relationship with the problem
of switching between classical Newtonian physics and Einsteinian
relativity. The thing is that one cannot go freely from one to the
other except by way of a transformation process (Lorenz
transformation). Relativity says that time and space is flexible.
Space gets distorted and time gets warped in the vicinity of strong
gravitational fields, but distorted and warped compared to what? What
"straight" measuring rod does space curve compared to, and what
"correct" clock does time deviate from?
In physics,Relativity is applied as an effective tool; its
calculations are faultless and no physicist give a damn
about its weirdness, but among lay people Einstein is still
questioned (I recently found a web page "Was Einstein right":
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2740/).What goes for relativity
applies even more to Quantum physics; its claims are absolutely NUTS,
but its calculations and forecasts holds up each time. Here I do not
know if there is any "transformation" possible.
This is exactly the problem of MOQ vs. SOM, no classical (SOM)
trained casual passer-by can understand the quality concept without a
"transformation" process possible. My hope is that someone will come
up with something resembling the Lorenz equations. I have tried and
my Interaction - Sensation -Emotion - Reason as a "classical"
equivalent of Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellect value show
some promise, but I am waiting for a brainstorm that will complete
it.
Donny. I see that you really don't attack Pirsig and that it is some
irony involved. Good, anyway I look forward to read your postings.
Bo
Footnote:
Afterwards I found that Pirsig does NOT use the map metaphor
in the sense that I do in my "The Quality Event" essay. He uses the
map PROJECTION simile i.e. that around the pole the polar projection
is better than an equatorial one. Well, it conveys much the same
meaning.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST