Hi DMB, On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve gave us "A Narrative of Moral Progress" and said: > > With regard to my metanarrative (where I paint a view of moral progress as > better taking into account the needs of more and more beings through the > expansion of the moral imagination through stories that help us see the other > as also your self and their needs as also your own), I invite critics of this > view who ask "but is it true?" to offer an alternative narrative or > improvement upon the one I offered. (I'm sure it can easily be improved upon > by others.) In doing so, I will be be trying to move the conversation back > from "but which one is true?" to "which story is the better story?" because > that shift in conversation away from grounding in philosophical foundations > toward new and better narratives is what my metanarrative is really about. > > > dmb says: > This is a different narrative than the one Pirsig tells. Again, you're > presenting Rortyism with the implication that his pragmatism is in agreement > with the MOQ.
Steve: Oh yes, mine is certainly a different narrative from Pirsig's narrative, but I do think it is in agreement with the MOQ since I think Pirsig was also trying "to move the conversation back from "but which one is true?" to "which story is the better story?"", and because I think that such a "shift in conversation away from grounding in philosophical foundations toward new and better narratives is what" what the MOQ is also about. I don't think Pirsig ever intended his evolutionary hierarchy to be the metanarrative to end all metanarratives. Paintings in a gallery come to mind. DMB: In the MOQ, the metanarrative of moral progress is quite epic by comparison. How does it go? ... Steve: You don't have to remind me. I know it well. It is a grand epic indeed. I value it quite highly. DMB: > I'd also point out that Pirsig spends more than a few pages on the moral > hierarchy of the MOQ and while this is not quite a foundation, Pirsig does > think we can use it to make universal moral claims, like we should ALWAYS > choose the human patient over the microorganisms that threaten her life. Steve: If you got through much of my original post in this thread you saw that I made a whole bunch of moral claims myself, and I'm glad you saw it as Rortianism, because I had hoped to show you that Rortianism can be used in the sorts of ways you've been saying it can't. DMB: He also uses the levels to recommend the moral shape of society. It's not that anyone is opposed to telling good stories, but the cultivation of moral imagination doesn't quite have the same teeth. It's just part of the story, if you'll forgive the pun. Steve: I'm sorry that my story didn't have enough punch. I plan to keep working on it. 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/md/archives.html
