Hi David (with amenities to Steve)--
dmb says:
Yes, I definitely think that Pirsig's comments about "one's behavior"
are comments about the actions of the self. But the MOQ does not
construe [that] our moral agency [is] essentially rational [nor] does it
construe the self as autonomous or proprietary. As Dan rightly
points out, the MOQ's self is not independent of the context in which
he or she exists. Like James and Dewey, Pirsig rejects the notion
that we are fundamentally different from the world from which we
emerged. We are part of the ongoing process of evolution.
If you will allow me to describe the agency of selfness as I view it, rather
than as the MoQ construes it, I think it may have more meaning within the
context you have outlined.
First of all, selfness is proprietary because the individual subject is the
"owner" or possessor of his/her conscious mind. To discuss the Self in
terms of "one's behavior" is too restrictive and can be misleading.
Actions (behavior) are an objective manifestation of an individual's
response to a situation. We cannot get inside another's Self to learn what
prompted a particular response, so we judge a person by the actions
observed. If they are rational, harmless, and conform to what is
"conventional' by society's standards, we call them moral.
I have no problem with the fact that the Self is dependent on the context
("structure") of existence. However, that structure is in large part a
creation of the Self; so the relation of Self to Otherness is actually a
co-dependency. Also, when you deny that "we are fundamentally different
from the world from which we emerged," what is your referent for "we"? If
it's the physical organism that we identify and relate to objectively as a
fellow human being, then I can't quarrel with your assertion. On the other
hand, with due respect to James, Dewey, and Pirsig, there is no empirical or
philosophical justification for claiming that the subjective Self is a
product of biological evolution.
What I have emphatically denied are the various positions that Steve
has falsely assigned to me - and there have been many of these false
attributions. At various points, he has wrongly construed me as
advocating pre-destination, the existence of divine souls, moral
agency as essentially rational in nature (Plato, Kant, etc.) and the
Cartesian self, just to name a few. Steve, on the other hand, simply
denies that there is any moral agency in the MOQ. For Steve,
apparently, freedom consists in knee-jerk reactions like jumping
off a hot stove or single-celled organism moving away from sulfuric
acid. He thinks the MOQ has nothing to say about moral responsibility
and he follows Sam Harris in thinking that people are as morally
culpable as tornados. I think that Steve's position is completely
ridiculous. Like I keep trying to explain to him, it's logically
incoherent
and he has to misuse all the central terms in order to maintain this
nonsense. It seems me that he has a real hard time "interpreting"
dictionaries and encyclopedia entries, not to mention the MOQ,
about which he is not even in the ballpark. If I seem too emphatic,
it's probably just a result of the frustration that comes from dealing
with such an incorrigible "thinker".
I would suggest that Steve's "frustration" is a result of having to deal
with a "logically incoherent" philosophy. His statements are certainly not
intended as a personal vendetta, and his conclusions are no more confused
than anyone else who attempts to configure his epistemology to Mr. Pirsig's
evolutionary paradigm.
The "hot stove" was Pirsig's ill-famed analogy for "the Quality experience",
as was the unfortunate application of "value decisions" to inanimate
objects. If everything --including the self--is tied to evolution (i.e.,
natural process) it follows that 1) life is predestined, and 2) fundamental
Reality is undetermined. I submit that Dynamic in this context is a fancy
word for "unstable", and that the author failed to posit a "first cause" or
primary (uncreated) source for existence.
In my opinion, the MoQ is incomplete as a metaphysical theory, and the
hierarchical levels of evolution do not account for the emergence of
proprietary awareness which is necessary for the realization of Value. I'm
well aware that these are serious charges, but it's clear to me that the
Quality thesis in its present form falls short of providing a meaning for
cognizant life and is an inadequate guide to human morality.
So now, Dave, you can either add me to your list of "incorrigible thinkers"
or find some positive value in my criticism that merits your attention. In
any case, as one who respects your dialectical skills and logical mind, I
appreciate this response to my recent post.
Essentially speaking,
Ham
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
