Hi Ron,
I'm glad you agree, since as Stout said, "The danger comes when you
think you have [stood outside your own age], for then you will be more
likely than ever to set limits on criticism."
A Rorty turn of phrase I really like is that he sees foundationlism as
an attempt to "lend our past practices the prestige of the eternal."
Doing so puts undue limits on the possibility for an even better
future. It's like asking a dinosaur what would make a good mammal. To
progress, evolution of morals like biological evolution needs no goal
in mind other than "betterness."
Steve
On Aug 27, 2009, at 11:33 AM, X Acto wrote:
Hello Steve,
I don't think thats too pessimistic rather a healthy bit of skepticism
regarding the matter, which, in my opinion gives it more power.
It also flushes out the term "relativism" as mostly a pejoritive term
toward this sort of thinking in the context we are discussing.
I don't feel that the idea is to escape or free ourselves but to extend
and expand.
-Ron
----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Peterson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:15:39 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
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/
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/
