From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 14:18:26 GMT
Hi Matt:
Thanks for pulling the teeth out of your previous posts that I found
confusing. If your bottom line --"Be careful how your interpret Pirsig" --
had been yanked out and laid on the table early on, a lot of verbiage
could have been saved. I join you in giving that advice to anyone
studying any particular philosopher, whether Plato, Aristotle, Kant,
Pirsig or Rorty. Pirsig gave a related warning in Lila:
"To put philosophy in the service of any social organization or any
dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher
one." (29)
> You're new questions are:
>
> 1) Am I to conclude that you object to the notion that humans are morally
> superior to, say, chickens?
>
> No. As stated, I haven't coveyed my position at all. I have merely
> created a rhetorical community that questions whether humans are morally
> superior to, say, chickens.
Would you be willing to convey your position now regardless of what a
"rhetorical community" might conclude?
> 2) Do you also mean to convey that Pirsig's moral system should be shunned
> because Marxism also appeals to reason?
>
> No. As stated, "I don't think he's completely off the mark." Its hard to
> shun something you like in some fashion. Also, as stated, the link of
> Pirsig's moral system with Marxism only occurs if Pirsig's system claims
> "objectivity," which is different then simply "appealing to reason."
Does Pirsig claim "objectivity" for his system? Has anyone? Not to my
knowledge. I agree that "objective" is different from "rational." Pirsig
does claim that the MoQ is rational.
> 3) So if I think humans are morally superior to deadly germs I'm
> irrational?
>
> No. As stated, I created two rhetorical communities for contrastive
> purposes where the people in them, to retain its contrastive power, cannot
> participate in the other community. The position that Pirsig occupies is
> one that brings together the two contrasting communities, but also includes
> people of mixed persuasions i.e. rational people who think humans are
> morally superior to deadly germs.
I presume your position would be that of a rational person who thinks
humans are morally superior to deadly germs.
> 4) Or, that it's wrong for a rational person to be certain about good and
> bad, right or wrong?
> As you stated further on, "No, that can't be because to define "bad" one
> must invoke a moral system of some sort." And as I have stated, I have yet
> to state any position I may hold. I fear clever rhetoricians, but only
> insofar as they are on the side of evil. But this is because I don't make
> a distinction between rhetoric and dialectic. Of course, a clever
> rhetorician can take advantage of any situation, that's what makes them
> clever. The simple thought I was trying to get across was that Pirsig's
> position makes it easier on the clever rhetoricians, thus lowering the bar
> of how clever a rhetorician has to be to take advantage of Pirsig.
I don't think Pirsig's position is any easier or harder for clever
rhetoricians to take advantage of than the position of any other
philosopher. Hitler's use of Nietzsche comes immediately to mind. I'm
sure you'd agree that Rorty's position, for example, is not immune to
rhetorical abuse.
> Am I being evasive? No. The reason why I went through everything I've
> said, step-by-step, was to bring across the fact that what I said orginally
> to Rudy didn't have any hidden, compacted, loaded meaning about morals. I
> don't see it as possible to pull out that I'm a cryto-[insert moral stance]
> from the things I've said. You might be able to pull out my position on
> rhetoric and dialectic, but that's about it. You say you've been confused
> by my "position." Well, I've been confused by the confusion because I
> didn't know I was converying a position. The very simple thought I was
> trying to push through was:
>
> Be careful about how you interpret Pirsig.
>
> Nothing fancy or subversive about it. It was a simple warning for a
> newcomer. My personal advice to Rudy.
Point well taken. Your warning reflects a moral stance although not
addressing the specific questions I asked. On those you can choose to
answer or not, as you wish.
Thanks for you patience. Teeth-pulling does take time.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 14:25:33 GMT