Elephant:
I thought I had written this so simply that even a slow child could
understand the problem I was pointing out. Yet, somehow you still failed
get the point. I'll do it one more time, and I'll take out as many of my
little side points and comments as I can... I'll number the points... I'll
section off the different points in the text..... all this so that we can be
sure you don't get confused again.
One more time, just for you Elephant....
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pirsig clearly acknowledges a distinction between "gravitation" and "the
law of gravitation". As evidenced by this sentence....
PIRSIG: "For example, it seems completely natural to presume that
gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Issac Newton."
You tell me:
ELEPHANT:
> Word to the wise Rick: never underestimate the importance if this word
> "seems" in a philosopher's mouth. Appearance and reality. If someone of
> Pirsig's ilk goes so far as to state that it "seems" that such and such,
you
> can bet your bottom ECU that he's about to say that it *only* "seems" that
> such and such, and that, on the contrary, *really* it is so and so.
RICK:
You're right about this rhetorical implication of "seems." But the "seems"
is directed at the notion that BOTH GRAVITATION AND THE LAW OF GRAVITATION,
existed before Issac Newton. It is NOT directed the notion that
"gravitation" and "the law of gravitation" are separate things. Pirsig
clearly accepts the distinction and that's all we'll need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
2. Pirsig intends to refute the proposition that it is "nutty" to think
that until the 17th century there was no GRAVITY. As evidenced by this
sentence....
PIRSIG: "It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century
there was no GRAVITY." (emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
3. Pirsig instead argues that it is not nutty to think the "LAW of gravity"
didn't exist before Newton, without mentioning the "GRAVITY" he claimed he
would argue about even once. As evidenced in these quotes.....
PIRSIG: "So when did this LAW start? Has it always existed?" (emphasis
added)
>
> > 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)
> >
> > 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?" (emphasis
added)
>
> >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...." (emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
4. Pirsig concludes that he has shown that GRAVITY ITSELF didn't exist
before Newton. As evidenced by this sentence.....
> > >
> > 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 intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and
GRAVITY
> > ITSELF did not exist before Issac Newton. No other conclusion makes
sense."
> > (emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
All I intended to show was that Pirsig claims he'll prove A, proves B, and
then claims he proved A. That's all.
Some of us might recognize this as the sane trick spotted by Struan in
Pirsig's letter to Bodvar (in which Pirsig claims he'll argue that
Value=Reality, and then instead argues that "Value is real"). My argument
had nothing to with the "truth" of the conclusion he reached--- It was only
intended to show that his argument did not support that conclusion in anyway
at all. I believe the above simplification (with the numbers so you can
follow real easy) proves this point far beyond any reasonable doubt. You,
however, failed to see what my argument was directed at and instead went off
on some tirade about proving that Pirsig's conclusion is true--- something
that was TOTALLY BESIDES THE POINT!!!! A true conclusion at the end of a
flawed argument does not fix the argument. The (argumentative) ends do not
justify the (argumentative) means. It's supposed to be the other way
around.
Additionally, I made no comments about my personal view on the matter...
despite your repeated and ridiculous claims that I did (ex. "His famous law
"force=mass*acceleration" is not the empirical discovery that Glenn and Rick
apparently take it to be.")--- where did I say this??? Can you point to a
quote please????
---- Perhaps you would realize that rays of enlightenment (or whatever) do
NOT flow from your keyboard, if you actually argued with what I said instead
of making up stuff, claiming that it's a belief I hold and then arguing with
that. Maybe a better handle for you would be "Strawman" instead of
"Elephant". Just a thought.
I tire of this...
rick
PS
As for the "clocks"--- You completely missed the point there as well (big
surprise). My point was not just that your analogy was drawn to an
illogical conclusion.... the point was that it was a drawn to an illogical
conclusion that had NOTHING TO DO WITH GLENN'S CONCLUSION. I substituted a
correction so that your analogy would correctly mirror Glenn's argument, but
you completely neglected it and went off on your own thing.
I can't argue with people who can't find the point.... Keep practicing.
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
