On 17 Sep 2010 at 14:38, Magnus Berg wrote:
[P]
> If you want to take the time (and have the patience) to show the way Pirsig
> switches between underlying assumptions and how stacks reveal such assumptions
> and such switching, I'm all ears. Specific examples with quotes from Pirsig
> would help.
I thought that was what I had been doing the last few days.
Ok, here we go again.
Q1:
"It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code
of intellect vs.society, the moral right of intellect to be free of
social control. Freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, of travel, trial by jury, habeas
corpus, government by consent -- these "human rights" are all intellect
vs.society issues. According to the
Metaphysics of Quality, these "human rights" have not just a sentimental
basis, but a rational, metaphysical
basis. They are essential to the evolution of life from a lower level of
life. They are for real." (Lila, 24)
Magnus:
Here, Pirsig focuses on the intellectual patterns of each individual
human. These patterns are not dependent on the social patterns of the
society in which that human lives.
[P]
Hold it right there. Pirsig makes it clear that all levels are dependent on the
levels below. Specifically he says culture provides each individual with a set
of "intellectual glasses" each uses to interpret experience with. So I question
your statement about intellectual patterns not being dependent on social
patterns.
Magnus:
Even if you take that person and move
it to the moon, it will still be able to think and manipulate thoughts
in his brain. So, the social patterns that those intellectual patterns
depend on, are not the social patterns of its former society, such as
church, school, yada yada. The intellectual patterns of the individual
human are build using what I call the universal stack, but this is not
recognized here very often. People seem to be content with the notion
that the intellectual patterns of a human *is* dependent on the social
patterns of the society, but if you really think about it, it's not the
case.
[P]
OK, but I've thought about it and Pirsig thought about it and many others have
thought about it and have agreed it's the case. There may be built-in-the-brain
assumptions about space and time such as Kant opined, but to divorce the
influence of social patterns on intellectual patterns puts the individual on
the moon at birth, a highly unlikely case.
Q2:
92. I think the MOQ would say that society has a moral right to control
biology. The danger is in that in controlling biology society creates
customs that injure society itself. Clearly the cost of caring for
biologically defective people is a burden on society, but the question
is, if society sanctions the murder of a defective fetus, what other
kinds of murder is it going to sanction? Think of the money that could
be saved by executing ALL criminals, ALL mentally ill people, ALL people
with an IQ below 100, ALL old people, ALL people with poor DNA
patterns, ALL people who can't do 40 pushups, and so on. The question
is, where do you cut it off? I personally am pro-choice, but I
understand the moral integrity of those who are not. It is a matter for
society through its mechanisms of politics to decide and keep deciding
as it evolves toward a better world."
Magnus:
Here, Pirsig has moved to the human perspective stack, and in that
stack, humans are merely the biological patterns with which society is
built. I'm not saying this is *wrong*, I'm saying it's a different
stack, and you get a whole different answer to the question.
[P]
I think I may be getting a glimmer of understanding you. Correct me if I'm
wrong.
1. Your reference to "underlying assumptions" is restricted to your three
stacks, Computer, Universal and Human. It doesn't mean, as I first thought,
that your system could reveal all the assumptions underlying a philosophical
point of view such as those underlying science.
2. The underlying assumption of your stacks is that all knowledge can be
divided into three parts -- things that happen in computers, things that happen
without human observation, and things that happen as interpreted by humans.
3. Your stack system does not reveal its underlying assumption. It doesn't
appear anywhere in the stacks.
Thanks for your continued patience. My ultimate question would be: "How is it
possible to exclude the human perspective from knowledge unless one is God?"
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
