Hi DMB,
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > #1) Steve began this thread by saying: > > ...It is clear that Harris's project in his latest book is the same as > Pirsig's in Lila -- to demonstrate that morality is open to rational inquiry > and that it is possible to know truths about morality in the sense that we > say we know truths about science. > > #2) Later that day, Steve said: > ...twenty years after the publication of Lila it never seemed less likely > than it does today that the MOQ vocabulary for talking about values will > attain a static latch in intellectual culture. At this point, it is clear to > me that Sam Harris is the public intellectual best placed to start and > contribute to a needed conversation about values and rationality, and > Pirsig's Quality won't help him do it. > > #3) And then 14 minutes later, Steve said: > .., the basis for saying that the belief is true is whether or not the belief > does or does not contribute to the evolution of static patterns toward > dynamic Quality. > > > dmb says: > On the one hand, you say Harris and Pirsig share the same project and > describe the basis of belief using the MOQ's vocabulary. (Those are your > first and third statements.) On the other hand you say the MOQ's vocabulary > won't help with Sam's project. (That's the second statement.) > > I suspect the discrepancy has something to do with the fact that your second > statement was directed to me. Steve: There is no discrepancy. I am aware of my audience and what vocabulary is useful for talking to Platt and what vocabulary is useful for talking to people who are not necessarily MOQers. DMB: I mean, it looks like you'd rather contradict yourself than agree with me, probably because agreement would mean you'd have to concede my point about relativism. What the deal, Steve? Why the flip-flop? Harris's description of the problem in his latest book is very consistent with the complaints in "The End of Faith", where he actually makes use of the term "relativism". We discussed that, so I know that you know it's true. We all seem to agree that it really is an intellectual emergency, would it really be so hard to admit that "relativism" is a reasonable name for this problem? Steve: I didn't say anything about the term "relativism." I have no problem with "admitting" that Harris does use this term. Pirsig does not, so this has nothing to do with whether or not Harris would benefit from making his case in Pirsigian diction. DMB: > We don't need to convince Sam to become a philosophical mystic or to take up > Zen practices. Like all projects and emergencies, this particular > intellectual emergency is about our cultural reality, static reality, > conventional reality. It's about the pragmatic consequences of ideas and so > it's about what we can assert within the intellectually knowable side of > things. It's about practical realities. And the MOQ has lots to contribute on > that score. It gives us a way to conceptualize morality more broadly, a way > that's based on the scientific theory of evolution. Don't you think it's fair > to say Sam doesn't have that tool and doesn't it seem like that tool would > serve his project well? That's the sort of thing I had in mind, anyway. That, > and the pragmatic theory of truth. I think that offers the kind of realism > Sam is looking for. That way, truth is flexible enough to be provisional and > plural but it's also constrained by empirical reality, which is going to > appeal to his sc ientific instincts. Steve: Harris doesn't think that he is hamstrung in making the case he wants to make. His next TED talk could not possibly be enhanced by including such phrases as "the evolution of static patterns toward dynamic Quality." Am I wrong? 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
