Rick, you should not assume that simply because I think your point is
mistaken I must therefore have misunderstood it.
Occasionally this will be the case, but to reason in the expectation that it
always will be looks like a treatable mental health condition.
> RICK:
> If one uses the words "gravity itself" then that is certainly not "all we'll
> need" to show that one believes there is this thing "gravity" that the words
> refer to. Your point is correct, in that respect. But it's a strawman,
> again. MY point was that if one uses the terms "law of gravitation" and
> "gravitation" side by side in the same sentence (as Pirsig did in the above
> quote) then that's highly indicative of the fact that he thinks of "law of
> gravitation" and "gravitation" as two different things.
ELEPHANT:
So you argue, and so I have understood you to argue. What I point out again
and again is that this argument is a load of dingos kidneys. I myself have
used the expressions "gravity itself" and "the law of gravity" side by side
in the same sentence countless times in the course of this discussion, and
this is *in no way* 'indicative of the fact that [... I ] think of "law of
gravitation" and "gravitation" as two different things". QED.
What it tends to indiacte is that I want both the people who think of this
one thing in terms of "law" and the people who think of this one thing in
terms of "gravity itself" to pay attention. My Guess is that Pirsig has
just the same intention.
The use of words does not *automatically* commit one to *any* ontological
account of what lies beyond them. On the ontological account, the fair
thing to do is to look at what the author of the words actually says about
ontology. Or, indeed, one can form a judgement about the underlying
ontological commitments based on a general survey of the authors intentions,
repeated points of concern, over-all world picture and the like. What one
can't do is extrapolate an entire exegesis on the basis of the contiguity of
two words in the odd sentence. Well, one can, obviously, but what would be
the point? That is, if your objective is to understand anybody.
Really I'm not saying anything I haven't already said.
RICK:
> If he was trying to
> imply that they were the same why use both terms, side by side, in the same
> sentence? It would be like an 'adult's only club' putting up a sign that
> says"Kids and Children are prohibited."
ELEPHANT:
Like, except for the niggling fact that Pirsig isn't the author of a one
sentence sign outside a kindergarten, but of an entire philosophy. QED.
RICK:
> Unless the two terms had different
> meanings, why bother with both?
ELEPHANT:
You are confused about "meaning". It's because they have different
*connotations* that it's worth bothering with both, not because they have
different *reference* - actually this may be the locus of your whole
problem.
A chap called Gottlob Frege once famously pointed out a problem with the
sentence:
"The evening star is the morning star."
The problem is that if this sentence is true, one might reason that what it
is telling us is equivalent to:
"The evening star is the evening star."
But, of course this last sentence is spectacularly uniformative, whereas the
first sentence looks to most people like it expresses some kind of discovery
(note that as an empiricist, Frege chooses an example of a discovery that
I'd be unlikely to agree with - but that doesn't matter here). So there has
to be some important difference, important non-equivalence, between these
two sentences. What is it?
Gottlob reasoned thus...
What is *the same* between these two sentences, and thus between the
expression "the evening star" and the expression "the moring star", is the
*reference*: they both refer to the same thing, to wit, Venus.
What is *different* between these two sentences, and thus between the
expression "the evening star" and the expression "the moring star", is the
*connotation* or *sense*: they both refer to the same thing but in virtue of
different descriptions of it, the one, that it shines first in the evening,
the second, that it shines last in the morning.
Hence, Gottlob reasoned, the sentence "the evening star is the moring star"
is informative because it conjoins two different bits of *sense* or
*connotation*, and not because it conjoins *reference* to two different
*things*.
*Sense and Reference*: get these two neatly divided in your mind.
OK now Rick, can we substitute "gravity itself is the law of gravity" for
"the evening star is the morning star", and carry over to the first the
lessons we have learnt from the second?
Right, well what we find is that Pirsig's use of the two expressions
"gravity itself" and "the law of gravity" does nothing to show that he
thinks these two expressions refer to two different objects, any more than a
conversation between astronomers in which people mentioned both the evening
star and the morning star would show that these astronomers thought that
there were two Venuses.
'Nuff said. Dingos Kidneys, as I earlier remarked.
RICK:
> This problem is further highlighted by the
> suspicious absence of "gravity itself" throughout the rest of the argument,
> up until the conclusion where it mysteriously shows up again. And if he
> wanted to say that the two terms had the same referent, then why not be more
> explicit about it? If he means what you say, then he has stumbled onto the
> most confusing and indirect way to say it. He's either a bad logician or a
> sloppy writer... take your pick.
ELEPHANT:
What's confusing has got something to do with who's confused. Maybe Pirsig
could have done better in this regard had his entire book been directed at
you specifically - if the writer had liased with you as to where he might be
allowed to put his premises so that you can be expected to notice them, and
that sort of thing. This approach having been strangly neglected, it
strikes me that the reader does have to do some of the work for himself,
whatever philosopher you happen to be reading. Plato even goes out of his
way to prevent characters like yourself, who want everything laid out on a
plate abc, from getting even the first foothold. His justification for this
is that if you don't start from wanting to work it out for yourself then you
are never going to understand anything anyway. Plato *never* states
anything "explicitly", and yet the consensus seems to be that amoungst the
logicians of his time he was the best writer, and that amoungst the writers
he was the best logician. But forget Plato. Would you say that would be
preferable approach? Should Prisig have written it like the O'Reilly guide
to XML? Or some way between Plato and a guide to XML perhaps? Where
precisely on that scale do you think? Maybe, since you have such clear
ideas about how one should get ones ideas accross, we can look forward to
your own publishing phenomenon.
> RICK:
[...snip...]
> As for what Pirsig says
> elsewhere, your putting the cart before the horse my friend. The arguments
> are supposed to support the theory, not vice versa. If one must understand
> all of Pirsig's other theory's before they can understand the Gravity
> argument, than what value does the argument have??? It can't possibly help
> support the theory if the theory is necessary to support the argument. This
> is begging the question and circular logic and about a hundred other
> fallacies. Are you, by the above, conceding that the argument can't stand
> on it's own???
ELEPHANT:
No. I am simply pointing out that the argument which stands on it's own
occupies more than the selection which you choose to make. A writer was
once asked how many words he would need to tells us what his novel was
about. "About 40,000" was the reply. Which is just to say, "if I could
tell you that in a newspaper article I wouldn't bother writing books".
You are cutting up the horse for sale in the charcuterie - not a method
calculated to get carts moving.
>>
>> RICK:
>>> 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????
>>
>>
>> ELEPHANT:
>> Well, you must take it to be an empirical discovery if you maintain that
>> there is this Gravity Itself distinct from the law of gravity. And since
>> maintaining this distinction is the main element of your criticism of
>> Pirsig, it is fair to infer that this is in fact your view. If it is not,
>> then I naturally withdraw my comments. I expect you, in return, to
>> withdraw you criticism of Pirsig. Because if you don't beleive in the
>> fundamental tenet about the existence of this "gravity itself" that all
> your
>> comments against Pirsig are based on, then your contribution thus far is
>> mere luftgebaude.
>
> RICK:
> Boy, you just don't get that showing that Pirsig's argument fails is not the
> same thing as trying to prove it's conclusion is false
ELEPHANT:
Rick, be assured: I do understand the difference between a conclusion and an
argument. I have observed that you are trying to show that Pirsig's
argument does not support his conclusion. The fact that I think your
attempt to show this is a load of dingo's kidneys does not prove that I am
confused about this difference between conclusions and arguments. You may
be surprised to learn that the fact that I might occasionally want to point
out that you are mistaken does not of itself establish that I am a loony.
Although, that I continue in this thankless task *is* perhaps a cause for
concern.
RICK:
> My opinion is totally besides the point (I may even
> agree with Pirsig's conclusion)
ELEPHANT:
No, Rick, it isn't in this case besides the point. As I pointed out, if you
don't beleive in this distinction between the law of gravity and gravity
itself, then the whole basis of your critique of Pirsig disappears.
Pirsig is accused of mixing two things up. You can't accuse him of that and
then at the same time think that those two things are the same one thing.
So in this case your personal opinion is very much to the point.
Also to the point, as we saw earlier, is your grasp of the distinction
between *Sense* and *Reference*.
Something for you to mull over in the fullness of time.
toodlepip
Elephant
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
