To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig's idea of the individual [Platt] Help me out here. I thought it was a tenant of postmodernism that all cultures are equally worthy, that no one culture ought to be considered better than any other...
[Arlo] You seem to have a strong fixation on using the MOQ to proclaim American and Western cultural superiority. That's you own bugaboo, I suppose, and I won't get bogged down into another round of "America the Superior!". But I will answer your point. First, "postmodernism" is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of theories. Although somewhat brief, I refer you to Wikipedia's general introduction on "postmodernism". "Postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture, which are generally characterized as either emerging from, in reaction to, or superseding, modernism. Postmodernism (sometimes abbreviated Pomo) was originally a reaction to modernism (not "post" in the purely temporal sense of "after"). Largely influenced by the disillusionment induced by the Second World War, postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality." If there is anything that is a "central tenant" of postmodernism, that is gleaned from the MOQ, it is this: "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived." This is NOT to say that "postmodernists" don't acknowledge that the world exists, as you often mistake "postmodernism" and "Idealism" in your posts. Instead, "postmodernists" tend to recognize that our intellectual categories, understandings, concepts, habits, customs, stories, myths, tendencies and whatnot are engendered and structured by the cultural collective (cultural derivation) of the individual. I can't think of a single postmodern writer, however, that would say that the Bataan Death March, or the Trail of Tears, or the Nazi Extermination Camps, or the genocide against indigenous Americans, are"relativistically equal" to anything else. Instead, what "postmodernists" tend to ask us to see is how our own historical perspective is invariabley filtered by cultural prejudices, propaganda, misinformation, and an ego-centric worldview. Second, although the MOQ presents broad levels by which cultural activity can be seen as either immoral or moral, I doubt the MOQ (or Pirsig) would go so far as to say "so-and-so culture is superior in every way to so-and-so culture". That is, we can look at aspects of culture, including our own, and get a sense of "what is better", but broad statements like "American culture is superior to Japanese culture" are simply ridiculous. Also, I doubt the MOQ would have anything to say to the cultural habit of eating with "forks" versus eating with "chopsticks", or enjoying a "violin sonata" versus a "didgeridoo piece". To take a recent example, consider the Islamic Hijab. The MOQ tells us that the forcing a woman to wear it, or forcing her NOT to wear it, is immoral. The underlying premise being that subjugation of women and the restrictions on freedom are immoral. However, the MOQ would not (I believe) tell us that not wearing a hijab is more moral than wearing a hijab (assuming choice in both instances). "Postmodernism" steps in to remind us that (again, assuming choice) the decisions we make on adorning ourselves, and the restrictions placed by society on those choices, are stepped in culturally-rooted mediation. Again, for example, we assume that our culture's forced concealment of a woman's breasts is somehow "moral and normal", but a society that forces her to conceal her face, or arms, or legs, is "immoral and abnormal". Postmodernism problematizes our own cultural ideas, and raises the questions that you wholly avoided last time this topic was addressed. In brief, tell me why it is "moral" for us to forbid a woman from showing her breasts in public, but "immoral" for them to forbid a woman from showing her face in public? The same "reasons" you'd propose (fear or rape, insulting prudish sensibilities, modesty) are all ones they would argue as well. The question really is "what's the difference"? Is there a difference? I have argued "no", there is no difference. The only "laws" on the concealment of the body should be based on medical and hygeneic reasons, the unwanted transmission of fluids that could lead to illness, spread disease and cause sickness. For those reasons, and I think the MOQ backs this up, society has every moral right to force people to conceal parts of their bodies in public places. [Platt] Is this a exception to standard postmodernist thinking, or have I misunderstood what a postmodernist like yourself is likely to believe? [Arlo] Since I consider the MOQ to be a "postmodern philosophy", in its rejection of "objectivity", its adherence to the social-mediation of intellectual knowledge, and Pirsig's own interest in the failings of "rationalism" (in ZMM) to deliver human happiness, I find the question nonsensical. From the essay, "Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality as a Development of Enlightenment Concepts" (not sure who the author is). (http://www.thepantheist.com/content/MOQenlight.html) "[Pirsig's] MOQ, which seems to have been mainly concieved in the 1960's, 70's and 80's, fits the hypothesis of a postmodern reworking and expansion upon established Western ideologies based on empiricism, science and other Enlightenment concepts. It appears to have been borne out of a common unease with the fruits of Western liberal democracy, and a suspicion that 'something is missing' from our technological world. Pirsig attempts to transcend the 'hard' dichotomy of what he calls 'Subject-Object Metaphysics' which tends to split all human endeavours into either 'artistic' or 'scientific' realms. He believes he has developed a superior model, with 'Dynamic Quality' at its head, apparently not unlike Plato's Theory of Forms, with the Form of Good in the prime position. I believe that Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, though still in a relatively raw state, is a valuable postmodern contribution to philosophy, despite the apparent nonchalance of academic philosophers. At the very least, his books and theories encourage thought and debate in the public arena, which I believe is the rightful domain of social philosophy, in addition to the sometimes dark and silent halls of academia." (You may like the essay's message on "individualism"). Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
