Ian said:
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.

dmb says:

What? I have no idea what what mean. Dirty word? Story fits? Bottom half? Shall 
I take this as evidence of drug abuse or just as an example of non-cognitive 
babbling?


> 
> 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

Reply via email to