Hi dmb, > David Harding said to dmb: > ...Yes, american pragmatists like Dewey and James reject SOM and yet they > provide the general solution (pragmatism). But do they specifically say that > good should be placed before truth? ... James gets caught out by not having a > Metaphysics from which to make his argument. James underestimates the > problem and says that what's good is what's practical because social and > intellectual quality in the victorian period in which James grew up were very > confused. See the problem isn't just that truth ought to be a species of > good - but the problem is a whole metaphysical outlook which places truth > first. If you remove truth you need to replace it with something else. And > once you replace truth with something else then who's to say that the way we > break up truth is the best way to break up that new thing? That's what Pirsig > saw. He could see that once you replace truth with quality a whole new > perspective can be found and this is a fundamental shift in the way we have > thought in > the Western world for the last two thousand years.. So, there are huge > metaphysical strengths to the MOQ which James never mentions: ... But he > claimed that (according to Pirsig) radical empiricism and his pragmatism were > separate.. He never combined them because he never placed quality first in > his Metaphysical outlook. So with this in mind, does either James or Dewey > specifically say that good is best left undefined fundamentally? No. ...These > are huge strengths of the MOQ and when things are viewed in this way things > are made incredibly more coherently than when not. James and Dewey, while > they are correct in the general area of philosophy which is the solution and > James specifically, mentions the fact that truth is a species of good and > that our concepts can never match a 'dynamic and flowing' reality, the lack > the clear Metaphysical outlook which the MOQ brings. > > dmb says: > It seems pretty clear to me that you raised all of these objections before > you even finished reading the post. I can address everything you say here by > simply reposting what I said the first time. If you'd continued to read > carefully, you might have noticed that your main objection (that James's > pragmatic truth lacks the metaphysical framework of the MOQ) simply isn't > true. Look, I haven't changed a thing about it, except delete the irrelevant > stuff. > > ----------------It is totally unreasonable to expect complete agreement > between any two philosophers and nobody ever claimed that Pirsig and James > were identical in every way. But they are so similar that it's downright > spooky, especially considering that he never even mentioned James in his work > until it was pointed out to him after his first book was published. > Amazingly, Pirsig tells us, James had even adopted the terms "static" and > "dynamic" to describe the relation between concepts and the immediate flux of > experience. For both James and Pirsig, not to mention Dewey, truths exist > within a larger entity. Pirsig calls it DQ whereas James calls it Pure > Experience but both of their terms refer to the primary empirical reality, > refer to cutting edge of experience. The objective truth of SOM is nowhere to > be seen in their pragmatic theory of truth. Truths are true in relation to > experience, not in relation to objective reality. > > ...In fact, Pirsig's idea of getting James two doctrines together, of fusing > the pragmatic theory of truth with his radical empiricism, was already taking > shape in James's mind and there are contemporary scholars who also think it's > best to view pragmatism as "a special chapter" within radical empiricism. > ------------------ > > That is the metaphysical framework, right there. Let me repeat the crucial > moment for you: "For both James and Pirsig, not to mention Dewey, truths > exist within a larger entity. Pirsig calls it DQ whereas James calls it Pure > Experience but both of their terms refer to the primary empirical reality, > refer to cutting edge of experience." They both have lots more to say, of > course, but this shows that they share the same basic framework wherein > static concepts are always secondary and are meaningful in relation to > experience as such, in relation to DQ or Pure Experience, which ever term you > prefer. Pirsig tells us that they mean the same thing, that James was talking > about the same thing. That's why it's so useful to learn about James or > Dewey. It illuminates the MOQ because you get to see the same ideas in a > different terms, get to hear the same song with a different voice and tempo. > That's the point, you know? I don't quote James and Dewey for any reason > except to illuminate a > nd clarify the MOQ. I've NEVER suggested that any one them should be subsumed > by the others, reduced to the other, or anything like that. It's just a > matter of following through on Pirsig's own self-descriptions to see what > they mean in greater detail. > Frankly, I find the resistance to this line of inquiry to be totally bogus > and even a bit bizarre. This is just what thinkers do. Like the headline in > the Onion (a parody of newspapers) said, "Scholar compares idea to other > idea!"
Quoting yourself is no proof dmb. I have offered quotes where Pirsig disputes the fact that he and James were saying exactly the same thing. You might find my line of reasoning a little less bizarre if you stopped for a second to try and understand what I am saying. Anyway, far from not wanting to compare ideas, I'm more than happy to do so.. So to try and show you what I mean in another way.. we can focus of similarities between James and Pirsig, which you do and it is good to do so - especially in an academic setting. But we can also focus on differences. Both are important. It's good to compare ideas. Some ideas are better than others. Pirsig says a whole lot which James never mentions. Yes, James was the philosopher who has gotten as close as anyone could to get to the MOQ. I don't deny you can even learn things from James in that he is in a few important ways the "same song with a different voice and tempo". But, I think that Pirsig fundamentally goes on from James ideas and puts them in a way which has far greater explanatory power than James could ever manage. This was likely because, as Pirsig points out, James grew up in a time when intellectual, social quality and Dynamic Quality was very confused. For example.. Did James ever *specifically* say that he thought the problem was one of metaphysics? No. Did James ever *specifically* say that the world is best seen when one places quality first metaphysically and everything else second? No. We can say that James had a metaphysical outlook which placed quality first, but he never *specifically* mentioned it because he never thought to. Instead, he got stuck on trying to explain quality to people and his outlook as one based on practicality and the stock exchange. He got caught out because of this and his critics saw it as an opportunity to say that he was replacing "truth with the values of the marketplace"(Lila). This is why the MOQ has better explanatory power. The MOQ, unlike James alternative, goes much deeper than problems of utility or the stock exchange. It goes to the problem which is at the very heart of Western philosophy - SOM. The MOQ is a metaphysics which is an answer to the problems created by SOM over the last two millennia. This was never articulated by James because he never saw it worth mentioning. Critics of Pirsig cannot say he was trying to replace truth with values of the marketplace. Pirsig has clearly identified the problem (SOM exclusivity) and the solution - the MOQ. Furthermore, there are other really good things which are incorporated into the MOQ which as far as I'm aware James never mentions.. E.g. Ranking values based on how evolved they are.. The levels of the MOQ and their conflicting moral codes.. Leaving quality ultimately undefined.. Leaving the MOQ open to its eventual replacement… These are no small fry and important differences.. So to repeat, yes there are important similarities. James is as close as you can get from a philosophology perspective to the MOQ. James did say that truth was a species of good and indeed he did go on to use the terms dynamic and static to describe reality and our ideas about that reality. But there are just as important differences which I've mentioned above as well. Explicitly identifying the problem (SOM exclusivity) is exactly the right way to avoid being misunderstood *and* explicitly giving an alternative to that fundamental problem is, well, better…. Thanks dmb, -David. 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
