Hi Struan, Ken, Glove and Group:
Struan kicked off one helluva discussion with his society vs. individual
post, even though it was ignored for too long. Better late than never. My
only excuse is that things slip by my notice with increasing frequency as
age takes it's toll.
In the ensuing exchange of views, Ken said to Struan, �I have puzzled
over this for some time and can find no source for "good" except the
universe. I have tried to make Quality the generator of 'good' and now
you have shot me down. I will be interested to hear your views. At the
moment I am up the creek without a paddle.�
To which Struan replied, " Ken, I find myself on the same creek, also with
no paddle. I'm afraid I can't answer your question, only throw it back in
the ring for you and others to dissect. My only answer is that I intuit that
good is central to everything, but that isn't good enough to convince me.
I've shot myself down in flames many times on this issue.�
Look out. We're just inches away from falling out of the canoe and
plunging headlong into Alice's Wonderland.
What is the "source" of good? You might as well ask, "What is the
source of existence?"
Rational thought can't handle "source" questions. You'll always wind up in
a whirlpool of infinite regress with "turtles all the way down."
For Ken, existence begins with the Big Bang. But then the question is,
�What is the source of the Big Bang?�
For Struan, infinite regress is familiar territory. After all, he�s a
philosopher and philosophers know the limits of rational discourse more
than most. When pushed to the edge with questions like, �What is the
source of the source?,� philosophers will often quote Wittgenstein:
�Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." But, this does
not mean, as some scientists would have us believe, "That of which one
cannot speak is not there." Struan "intuits" that good is essential to
everything.
I know that good is essential to everything, too. Not because I've had any
special revelations, but because no matter how hard I try I can't seem to
escape it. It's around me, on me, in me, below me, above me, through
me. From a simple "It's good to be alive" to "It's good to have a
conversation like this," there�s no escape. I'm always valuing whether I
expressly realize it or not. All that I do I do because I strive to be able to
say at some point, "That�s better.� Between the no choices of birth and
death, my life is nothing but a series of value choices towards what�s
better. (I agree with Glove that my life is reality. But that�s another post.)
Struan then asked, "I don't understand why that which is a product of
Quality seems bound to strive towards Quality How (and why) does
something strive towards itself? That seems to me to be rather odd, if not
downright impossible."
The answer I think has something to do with Quality being a two-headed
beast. On the one hand Pirsig says it wants freedom. That's what it
strives for. On the other hand, to survive it needs to inhibit freedom with
static latches. Pirsig says in Lila, Chapter 29, �Suffering is the negative
face of Quality that drives the whole process.�
Why must Quality strive for freedom? Was it every totally free and then
lost it�s freedom? Don't ask me. But Pirsig�s assumption that it seeks
freedom provides a fairly decent explanation of evolution and lots of other
things--a better explanation than science provides because science can�t
explain why it (or anything else) is good.
IMHO, any worldview that can�t explain why one worldview is better than
another isn�t a very good worldview. Or, any philosophy that thinks it�s
better than another better explain what it means to be better.
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
