Ian, The power of mythos. cool observation
-Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 6:14:06 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Noncognitive babble Hi DMB, Nice one " It seems quite artificial even to me. it's not really about facts or values so much as it's about statements. I can see that it's all very carefully thought out and exact and yet it's empty and lifeless. I mean, I don't think that way of defeating the problem isn't very moving. i'd even say this analytic approach is part of the problem or a symptom of it." Exactly, I think each younger generation is as mixed up as the previous grey beard generation. None of us has a monopoly. Oh and btw ... "Did you know that human, humility and humble all come from a common root meaning "dirt"? I kid you not." Etymology is a major reason I like Pirsig. In order to avoid the (dirty word) "evolutionary psychology" or EvoPsych, I would point out that the MoQ is "evolutionary" and the top two levels we spend miles of email debating are ... err ... "psychological" That dirt is the physio-biological bottom half of the story. Doh ! How perfectly the story fits. Ian On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > steve said to all: > 20 years after Lila, I wonder how it would be read by someone new to Pirsig. >Would the ideas seem relevent? As we get more and more distance from the >positivists, I wonder how young people today would read Pirsig's attacks on >the >fact-value dichotomy. Would they wonder just who it is Pirsig thinks he is >arguing against? > > > dmb says: > I'd very much like to know what seems relevant to young people these days and > I >wonder how many college freshmen could say what "positivism" or "the >fact-value >dichotomy" means. If the stories I've heard from university professors can be >taken as a generalization, kids these days are shallow, complacent and >conservative. What is today's version of beatniks, hippies, punks or goths? >Isn't there supposed to be some kind of creative form of rebellion in every >generation? I digress. Back to the point. I'd say Pirsig is pretty clear and >concrete about what he's arguing against. One of the things he's working >against >is the irrelevance of philosophy. Long before he identified with the >pragmatists, he said "metaphysics is good if it improves everyday life; >otherwise forget it." > > Less than one percent of college students choose philosophy as their major >field but the majority will take a class or two. I wonder how many poor >freshman >sign up for philosophy 101 expecting to learn profound secrets or deep truths >and find arcane nonsense instead. Pragmatism was practically invented to help >us >dispense with the fake problems and endless verbal disputes that dissuade so >many freshman. Supposedly, pragmatism is a method for solving human problems >more than philosophical problems. In fact, the parameters of radical >empiricism >(all experience counts and whatever is beyond experience should not count) can >be seen as a kind of epistemological humility. It's humanism in the sense that >it recognizes the limited nature of our truths. James thought humanism was >another name for pragmatism. Some people take that whole "man is the measure" >idea as a form of arrogance but I think it's quite the opposite. Did you know >that human, humility and humble all come from a comm > on root meaning "dirt"? I kid you not. > > If you were a freshman and my aim was to get you excited enough about >philosophy to take at least one more class, which would be more likely to >enthuse them? A) Assign Descartes, Hume and Kant or B) Assign Zen and the Art? >Richard Rorty told Cornel West that he'd give his right arm to write like >William James. Ever seen Cornel West give a sermon - er um - I mean - give a >lecture? He's like a jazz artist of ideas. Dewey helped to found the ACLU and >NAACP and for decades he had an opinion on everything that mattered and people >wanted to know what it was. I mean, teachers should be able to show that >philosophy is a living, breathing thing. I wish some professionals would step >up >with a response to the new atheists. Wouldn't that be fun to watch? I mean, >let's face it, we're talking about two scientists and a journalist - but I >digress. The point is simply that young people will not see the relevance of >philosophy if their introduction to it means grappling with arcane jargon in > order to entertain fake doubts and consider artificial problems. We can save >that kind of grappling for more advanced students and those headed to grad >school. I guess it's obvious. The first-year reading assignments have to be >readable by first-year students. You want to challenge but not overwhelm. The >pragmatists are good for that too. > > The fact-value dichotomy seems like such a clinical name for the issue, >especially when you think about the kind of thing James and Pirsig are doing. >Values are so central that facts are something like a subspecies of value. >Pirsig's objection to SOM could be boiled down to an objection to the >supremacy >of facts (objective truths) and the denigration of values (merely subjective >preferences). Radical empiricists say that value judgements come first and the >reasons come later so that it's prioritized in some sense even >epistemologically. This is part of the reason they both talk about the role of >one's basic temperament in taking the views we take - and that's just one of >the ways that different values produce different perspectives. As they paint >it, >values are so intertwined with facts and knowledge that the distinction starts >to seem quite untenable and downright unrealistic. > > Steve said: > Maybe this aspect of SOM that attracted most of us to the MOQ is a straw man. >If Pirsig and the other antiSomers are successful, at least at some point it >will be a straw man, right? Someday young people just won't even know what >Pirsig was going on about. At the time I got into Pirsig, I really felt like >the >notion of objectivity was being used to push values into some realm of >noncognitive babble. Is that still happening today? > > dmb says: > > They say that ideas have a life cycle. They begin as heresy, become truth, > and >then they end on a greeting card. > > > I couldn't tell you if the realm of "noncognitive babble" is still a > happening >place these days because I don't know what that means. > > > How can I put this? > > > If anti-SOMers are successful - and let's say that success means philosophy > is >taught from their critical perspective - then every philosophy student will >still be challenged to re-think everything. In our culture at least, there is >a >common sense realism in everyone's basic, unphilosophical beliefs. In this >sense, anyone who's ever worn a band-aid is a realist, you know? These young >people might realize that reality is a lot more plastic and intimate than they >thought. And, just to go a bit too big with this, if this realization were >widespread it might inspire a for the art in all things and general atmosphere >of creativity and engagement. > > Also, please notice that a former problem is not the same thing as a straw > man. >The first is one means success or progress and the second is a bogus fiction. > > > > Steve said: > > Here are some examples of the views that Pirsig attacks with regard to the >dichotomy between facts and values taken from an article on Hilary Putnam who >also made such critiques on SOM: (1) No statement is both evaluative and >factual. (2) There is no logical connection between evaluative and factual >statements. (3) Factual statements are true or false independently of any >value >judgments. (4) Facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond >controversy. >(5) Evaluative statements are neither true nor false. > Are these dogmas ones that people still adhere to? Or have Pirsig, Putnam, > and >the other critics of the fact-value dichotomy been successful? > > > > > > dmb says: > > Well, those are philosophical dogmas that most people will never entertain, > at >least not in those terms. It seems quite artificial even to me. it's not >really >about facts or values so much as it's about statements. I can see that it's >all >very carefully thought out and exact and yet it's empty and lifeless. I mean, >I >don't think that way of defeating the problem isn't very moving. i'd even say >this analytic approach is part of the problem or a symptom of it. > > > > > > 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 > 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 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
