Hi Glenn, Ed and all:
I too welcome Ed to the discussion.
GLENN:
Every moral conflict he (Pirsig) cites between the intellectual and
the social has the intellectual side winning.
PH:
He does? Reread Chapter 24 of �Lila� for Pirsig�s attack on static
intellectualism, perhaps best summed up in the following
paragraph:
PIRSIG:
It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to blame
for the social deterioration of America, because it has undermined
the static social values necessary to prevent deterioration. In its
condemnation of social repression as the enemy of liberty, it has
never come forth with a single moral principle that distinguishes a
Galileo fighting social repression from a common criminal fighting
social repression. It has, as a result, been the champion of both.
That's the root of the problem.
PH:
That the success of the scientific materialistic worldview has
contributed to the intellectual pattern of amoral �objectivity� can
hardly be doubted.
GLENN:
Maybe you missed my point. Whenever there is a moral issue
between the intellectual and social level, the evolutionary moral
hierarchy says to side with intellect. However, if siding with the
intellect undermines the social level to the detriment of the
intellectual level, you should side with the social. Depending on
the issue, there may be compelling arguments for either course.
What guidance does MOQ provide for this predicament? None.
ED:
The guidance, as I see it, is a judgment as to which choice will be
more dynamic, the one that potentiates further or greater
evolution. I doubt we will ever be able to confidently make such
decisions in all situations, but the guidance is assisted from
knowing where we are headed . . . However, during this process,
when the value decisions are very close there will indeed need to
be leaps of faith in order to proceed. How are these leaps of faith
directed? Or, what directs them? I don�t believe it is from rational
thought, although the rational framework appears necessary. I
think it comes from our intuition, our sense of Quality.
PH:
I agree. The MOQ does indeed provide guidance in the event a
rational analysis of the issue reaches a stalemate. Of course, it�s
not the no-doubt-about-it 2+2=4 guidance of the type science
insists on, but few things in life enjoy such precision. Ed�s
description of the type of guidance the MOQ offers is right on the
mark. I would only add the following bit of guidance from Pirsig:
PIRSIG:
What�s good is freedom from domination by any static pattern, but
that freedom doesn�t have to be obtained by the destruction of the
patterns themselves.
GLENN:
I think you missed my point. What I�m saying is that you�ve
�already� considered this guidance about choosing the more
dynamic level, but something is also tugging you to side with the
social level. If both tugs have equal merit, what does MOQ advise
you to do? Go back to the moral hierarchy? Well, you�ve already
done that! It would just be a vicious cycle to do it again. Instead
you end up making a decision base on a vague sense of quality or
morality or intuition, just as anyone does currently.
PH:
The difference is that most people today operate ONLY from a
vague sense of political correctness rather than any rational
examination of what�s good and bad. Pirsig�s sense of Quality
comes into play as a last resort, like physicist Stephen Hawkings
who said when asked how he solves a knotty problem: �I work very
much on intuition, thinking that, well, a certain idea ought to be
right.� In fact, I would venture to suggest that when scientists of the
stature of Hawkings come to an impasse, it�s their sense of
quality or beauty that points them towards a solution.
Speaking of beauty, I�d like to get in another pitch for my favorite
subject�esthetic values. In many ways I join Glenn in his support
of science and its methods, for without science and technology,
especially medicine, I wouldn�t be here writing this. And one of the
most fascinating aspects of science for me is its reliance, not only
on objective, verifiable data, but also on beauty. Here is how
J.W.N. Sullivan, a mathematician, describes the �beauty� test:
�Since the primary object of a scientific theory is to express the
harmonies which are found in nature, we see at once that these
theories must have an esthetic value. The measure of the
success of a scientific theory is a measure of its esthetic value,
since it is a measure of the extent to which it has introduced
harmony in what was before chaos.�
Scientists from Kepler to Einstein have judged their theories not
just by their success in accounting for data but also by their
beauty, not just by their order but also by the kind of order they
produced. From all I�ve read about the beliefs of the pioneers in
math and science, beautiful design, as much as data,
determines scientific reality.
For me, that�s where the MOQ fits best into the scientific paradigm.
(Not that science doesn�t adhere to many other values.)
I didn�t mean to get off the subject of the efficacy of the MOQ to
settle moral issues. It just seems to me that if you�re looking for
efficacy, you won�t find it anywhere to the extent that you�ll find it in
science and technology. But by comparison to the various
schemes of moral guidance out there, past and present, I think
the MOQ with its grounding in reason and experience is a lot
better than the alternatives.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
