Hey Glenn and Elephant and all,
I just wanted to make a brief textual examination of the passage that's
causing all the trouble to see if it actually says any of the things that it
claims to say.
(from chap.3 pg.30)....
PIRSIG:
"For example, it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and
the law of gravitation existed before Issac Newton. It would sound nutty to
think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity."
RICK:
Well, it seems nutty to say there was no gravity. Notice he doesn't say
that it seems nutty there was no "law of gravitation" before Newton... that
seems fine now but watch what he does....
PIRSIG:
"So when did this LAW start? Has it always existed?" (emphasis added)
RICK:
But wait, now we're talking about the "law of gravitation" again. He was
supposed to be explaining why it's not nutty to think that there was no
"gravity" before Newton. Of course it's not nutty to think that the LAW
didn't exist before Newton...everybody agrees on that part.
PIRSIG:
"What I'm driving at," I say, "is the notion that before the beginning of
the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal
generation of anything, the LAW of gravity existed." (emphasis added)
RICK:
Well sure that's silly... but once again, we all already agree that the LAW
of gravity (or gravitation) only dates back to Newton. The issue here is
whether the GRAVITY described by the law is older.
PIRSIG:
Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in
anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was no
space either, not anywhere-this LAW of gravity still existed?"
RICK:
Same problem again, he's arguing the wrong point. Gravity itself was likely
born at about the same time as the "space" he refers to in the above
quote... but his point has nothing to do with that.
PIRSIG:
"If the law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don't know what a thing
has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed
every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute
of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't have. Or a single
scientific attribute of existence it did have...."
RICK:
Again, he's arguing a point everyone already agrees with. HOWEVER, this
time there's an additional oddity this time. He refers to the "attributes
of nonexistence" and tells us that there's not one the law of gravity didn't
have. I submit, the are no such things as "attributes of nonexistence".
Rather, "nonexistence" is the ABSENCE of any attributes of all. How could
you possibly name an attribute of nonexistence? If it really didn't exist,
what would the attribute belong to?---
--- And finally, he springs the trap....
PIRSIG:
"Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find
yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally reach
only one possible, rational intellegent conclusion. The law of gravity and
GRAVITY ITSELF did not exist before Issac Newton. No other conclusion makes
sense." (emaphasis added)
RICK:
Whoa there boy... All of a sudden we are talking about GRAVITY ITSELF
again!?! His argument doesn't address this at all. In fact, the ONLY time
he mentions GRAVITY ITSELF anywhere in this argument is when he makes it
clear in the first line that "gravitation" and "the law of gravitation" are
distinct. Which we all agreed to already. The only thing he proved was
that the "law of gravity" didn't exist before Newton, which any elementary
school student could have said much quicker and easier and yet, his
conclusion indicates that he believes he has forcefully argued the GRAVITY
ITSELF didn't exist before Newton. Nice try, but no points this round...
Sorry Phaedrus.
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
