Hi Folks
My take on any discussion is that as long as it pertains to the MoQ and
is at least vaguely civil then go for it.
If it gets out of hand or abusive I'll intervene.
Cheers
Horse
On 24/11/2016 12:29, David Harding wrote:
Dmb, Horse and all,
Regarding the below - whilst we can see his ideas forming here - I think his
1998 thoughts on the matter are superior. Having not received the book yet
Wikipedia suggests it distinguishes between two camps on the left - the
'pragmatic progressive left' and the 'critical left'. His narrative of the
critical left moving towards apathy is very apt in my view. The rise of Trump
is, if anything, a failure of intellectual circles on the left to defend the
right things and the ‘post’ cultural left could only be at least partly to
blame. I also love the following quote from “Competition for political
leadership is in part a competition between differing stories about a nation’s
self-identity, and between differing symbols of its greatness”. Mythos over
logos indeed! An MOQ supported statement if I ever heard one.
Interestingly Rorty’s Vietnam war fracture time period lines up nicely with a
political fissure described independently by both Matt Stoller in his excellent
article
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/
and by Thomas Frank in his book ‘Listen, Liberal - what ever happened to the party of the people?’. Both of these describe a takeover within the Democratic party amongst the despondency of the Vietnam war by those in favor of corporations over the trust-busting Democrats who were pushed out. Stoller writes:
“To young, liberal politicians, many of whom read (Charlie) Peters, there was
simply no difference between what the government was doing in one part of the
world and what corporate America was doing at home. This cynicism allowed the
traditional Republican notion of overregulation to be introduced into a
liberal-leaning group. Whether it was overregulated or mismanaged by Wall
Street, Penn Central had collapsed—so what was the difference anyway? The idea
of Wall Street posing some kind of specialized problem was dated. After all, it
hadn’t been banks sending young people to die in the jungle. Remember also,
this is the generation that included people like Pete Stark, the congressman
who jump-started his campaign by putting a peace sign on his bank.”
He goes on to write about how this cynicism naturally produced libertarian
style arguments on both the right and left and helped to create what we now
know as Neoliberalism.
But to speak to your point at the larger conflict level - that’s right
regarding this conflict between social and intellectual values. What the MOQ
provides us is a language where we can condemn one side -not just as someone’s
subjective opinion - but a fact backed by millions of years of evolution… It
would be great use it on MD!
Horse - I’m walking wide eyed into politics territory here. Here’s hoping that
you’ll reconsider this rule so we can confidently start discussing these things
with the strength of the MOQ..
On Nov 21, 2016, at 9:47 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello, MOQers:
I suppose everyone knows that people are suspicious of the emotional language in
"rhetoric" and consider "sophistry" to be a form of manipulative deception. The
conventional meaning isn't likely to change anytime soon and that's fine because there is empty
speech and there are plenty of manipulative deceivers that deserve the name. In telling the story
of philosophy Pirsig turns those meanings upside down.
“Plato’s hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle in which
the reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the reality of the
True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in a huge struggle for the
future mind of man.” -- Robert Pirsig
As the story is usually told, rhetoric is too emotional to be considered
serious about the truth. Our feelings have no bearing on the truth, this story
goes, and clear thinking is about cool logic and putting one's passions aside.
But, Pirsig says, this story doesn't make as much sense as it used to.
“It’s been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the passions,
the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an understanding of
nature’s order which was as yet unknown. Now it’s time to further an
understanding of nature’s order by reassimilating those passions which were
originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man’s
consciousness, are a part of nature’s order too. The central part.” — Robert
Pirsig
At certain points in the re-telling and inversion of this old slanderous story
Pirsig is downright angry about it. He finally realizes that the Platonic
demand for passionless dialectic has the effect of excluding Quality, which is
the whole thing for Pirsig.
“Phædrus’ mind races on and on and then on further, seeing now at last a kind of
evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched in himself, which pretends to try and
understand love and beauty and truth and wisdom but whose real purpose is never to
understand them, whose real purpose is always to usurp them and enthrone itself.
Dialectic - the usurper. That is what he sees. The parvenu, muscling in on all that
is Good and seeking to contain it and control it."
And he's feeling triumphant about this discovery because it turns out that the
Sophists weren't demagogues, hucksters, or confidence men. They were teaching
Quality and they were teaching it the same way he had been teaching it to his
student in Montana.
"Lightning hits! Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching!
Not ethical relativism. Not pristine 'virtue.' But areté. Excellence. Dharma! Before the
Church of Reason. Before substance. Before form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic
itself. Quality had been absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were
teaching Quality, and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric."
And this re-telling of ancient history is part of the book's central project,
which is a root expansion of rationality. The criticisms of rationality that he
offers almost always involve the problem of objective truth. Value-free science
has got to go, he says. Attitudes of objectivity make our thinking stiff and
narrow and entail a denigration of subjectivity so that Quality is JUST what
you like, is JUST your opinion or assessment of some thing or other. But this
is part of that same old slander against the Sophists and rhetoricians, Pirsig
says, and our form of rationality would actually be vastly improved by putting
Quality at the cutting edge of all experience and all thought. Quality is right
there at the very roots of our thinking and by including Quality our thinking
is broadened and deepened and enriched by the inclusion of the emotional and
aesthetic quality that pervades our thought regardless of whether we
acknowledge it or not. You gotta have a feel for the work, he says, and that's
not just about fixing motorcycles. It's about everything. All the time.
For Pirsig, "rhetoric" simply means excellence in thought and speech. Rhetoric
is truer than objective truth because it includes the heart as well the head, so to
speak. To talk truthfully will mean that the claim is supported by evidence and its
expression logically sound, just as before, but that's no longer good enough. Speaking
truthfully also means that you care about the truth, have feelings about that truth and
maybe your expression shows the power or the beauty of that truth. To move or persuade
another is not a sinister manipulation or a deception. It's a good thing and we should
love it somebody does it right.
________________________________
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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
moq.org
Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides a
more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms allow
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
--
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take
our breath away."
— Bob Moorehead
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
