Hi Ron,
I don't want to sound too pessimistic about our inability to free
ourselves from our culture. We are also in a position to recreate our
culture.
Consider this from a Princeton colleague of Rorty named Jeffrey Stout
in Ethics After Babel:
"...tradition-bound thought is [not] necessarily uncritical. We may
have no power to transcend our traditional inheritance completely--for
we are finite, historically situated beings--but we do not have to rise
above history to call assumptions in question. The attempt to stand
outside one's age, Hagel said in a famous phrase, is like trying to
jump over the Rhodes. You cannot do it. The danger comes when you think
you have, for then you will be more likely than ever to set limits on
criticism. You will view some of your assumptions as eternal
deliverances of reason. It would be better to think of them as
predjudices--as prejudgments [Pirsig would call such habits of thought,
intellectual patterns of value] any one of which can in principle be
placed in question provided most are kept in place at any given
moment."
Now it seems Pirsig said that he needed to "leave the mythos" to bring
back the Quality postulate which explains his insanity. He put too many
of tradition-bound assumptions into question at once. It was necessary
for him to do so because he was pursuing the "Ghost of Reason" itself.
But when he returned to create a thing called "The Metaphyics of
Quality" he was back in the mythos, fighting to call a particular set
of tradition-bound assumptions into question while maintaining others.
If he didn't maintain others, he would be completely incomprehensible.
Pirsig never expected the MOQ to be the final word on reality. His work
is a contribution to an ongoing cultural process of self-creation that
cycles from such innovation as his MOQ to criticism to revision to the
next innovation. That the MOQ is not immune to this historical process
does not diminish Pirsig's genius, it is just to say that Pirsig is a
"finite, historically situated being."
Best,
Steve
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:53 PM, X Acto wrote:
Hello Steve,
I think we mix in meaning, while I agree that what is percieved is
shaped
by culture, and that Moq is not a free ticket to a gods eye view, it
however
does provide a standard in which all human cultures may be understood
and measured in relation to their values.
Keeping in mind, that the intellectual level of a culture is defined
by that culture.
its highest patterns being those that sustain social and biological
quality.
I do not think this effects our culturally derived perception as our
culturally
derived understanding.
It informs us that our cultural values of intellect are not THE value
of intellect.
Moq in this manner may be applied to any cultural context
I really feel that it's most profound impact is on human values as a
whole
which break down universally in terms of four static levels of quality.
-Ron
----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Peterson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:52:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
Hi Ron,
Steve,
I thought the premise behind the 4 levels was not only better
understanding
but
the breaking of the paralysis of cultural relativism, and relativism
in general,
I got the feeling throughout Lila that that was the problem western
society faced.
and the arguement Pragmatism lacked
you know
virtue, excellence..betterness...Quality
virtually both books are about the feelings of emptiness and
detachment
objectivism unleashes in the form of moral relativism.
I agree it is not about what is true, but it IS about what is better.
beliefs are justified through use in expereince otherwise they have
no value.
what else would be discussed than what values are better than others?
and what framework would yield those answers but MoQ?
I'm not sure how "I think therefore I am" figures into the
conversation
in this regard.
Steve:
I was referring to this bit from Lila:
"Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived.
Nature tells us only what our culture predisposes us to hear. The
selection of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore
is made on the basis of social patterns of value, or when it is not,
on the basis of biological patterns of value. Descartes' "I think
therefore I am" was a historically shattering declaration of
independence of the intellectual level of evolution from the social
level of evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a
seventeenth century Chinese philosopher? If he had been, would anyone
in seventeenth century China have listened to him and called him a
brilliant thinker and recorded his name in history? If Descartes had
said, "The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I
think, therefore I am," he would have been correct."
The MOQ is not immune to this sort of historical contingency either
and so then is also culturally derived. This is not a dig on the MOQ.
Everything is culturally derived. At least the MOQ includes an
understanding of that fact.
Twentieth century liberalism exists, therefore Pirsig thinks, therfore
the MOQ exists.
Best,
Steve
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/
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/
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/
