From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:28:15 GMT
Platt, to Matt:
>These "other people" deciding what you should think is what gets me. It
>makes the "Emperor's New Clothes" story the criteria for what's real.
>
> > This is why pragmatists replace
> > the Tribunal of Reason with a Tribunal of People. Only other people
> > are involved in judging our beliefs and actions.
>
>See what I mean? You, the individual, are incapable of knowing what to
>believe and how to act. Only others can tell you, paving the way for
>Big Brother and the Brave New World.
>
>Thanks Matt. You've made my case.
>
>Platt
Johnny:
I don't think Matt has a problem believing what he believes. It would
be
mighty hard to avoid that. What he's talking about those times that
really
matter: when people disagree about what is true. How does one confirm
what
they believe to be true execpt by confirming it with other people? We
are
talking to other people right now, aren't we? And please, if you are
not
wearing clothes, at least say you are wearing clothes and we'll go along
with that.
Kevin:
Thanks, Johnny. I think Platt knows perfectly well (and Matt EE's post
made perfectly clear) the difference between self-justified belief and
when we attempt to justify them to others (for settling arguments,
finding agreement or making conversation).
I suspect Platt is just being a bit obtuse and can't help but play
Devil's Advocate:-)
I think Pirsig's "fence straddling" between post-modern and
post-post-modern or modern (depending on which direction you see it) is
entirely centered on this problem of personal justification vs. public
justification.
Pirsig has a strong mystic voice when he talks about personal beliefs
and judgments. Many here find this part of his message most compelling.
Knowing the things that no one can tell you, and other such acts of
intuition/revelation. I think it's safe to say that it's the mystics who
got most turned on by ZMM.
But Pirsig can't stand the idea of being stuck not being able to justify
those personal belief/judgments to anyone else. He's worried that he'll
be stuck with "nothing to say" when the Gestapo comes. Justifiable to be
sure. Most people react to mysticism and post-modernism with a twinge of
defensiveness. What can you expect when the rug has been pulled out from
under them? Pirsig clearly wants to overcome this perception and leave
us with something concrete. Something to stop the Gestapo other than,
"can't we discuss this and come to some kind of arrangement?".
Pirsig wants to say to the Gestapo, "It's obvious you're wrong and here
is why."
Some of us think that no matter how hard Pirsig tries to construct some
formal metaphysical system for making such a statement (and proving it),
he never gets past the position of "If you thought like I did, you'd see
this is wrong."
Without accepting his redescriptions of Reality, his system of Patterns,
his feelings about ineffable Dynamic Quality, there is nothing to say to
the Gestapo. I happen to think this is why many of us who read Pirsig
and find it so compelling are immediately drawn to the idea of
"converting others" or "making a real difference". It's sprung up here
in the forum several times in the last few months. Why? Because if we
can get everyone to think like we do (provided we can finally settle on
one interpretation of the difference between Social and Intellectual:=),
we can finally justify ourselves to everyone else in a formal,
systematic, foundational, air-tight way. That would help us solve real
problems. But it's not the metaphysics that are solving the problems,
it's people. And getting people to all think along similar lines will
obviously make moral problems easier to solve.
After all, if we didn't think differently, the Gestapo wouldn't be at
our door would they?
Now before Platt distorts this observation to say that I'm advocating
"mob thinking" or that the way to save yourself is to don a swastika,
let me clarify that I'm merely pointing out that metaphysics won't save
us from tyranny. Being "right" or "better" won't keep a mob from
lynching you.
So what do we do about the Gestapo beating on our door? I humbly submit
that at that point, no form of argumentation (no matter how
metaphysically sound or logically constructed) is going to save you.
Condemn them all you want. Personally, when the Gestapo comes for me,
I'll be reaching for a weapon (and I don't mean my well-worn copy of
LILA).
No philosophy is armor against tyranny. This is not a short-coming of
pragmatism or post-modernism or anything else. Historically, no
philosophy has stopped tyranny. In fact, most philosophical movements
have been used as justification for some form of tyranny or another
(even Buddhism). The same Knock-down argument that is supposed to stop
the Gestapo, is just as often the argument used to kick down your door.
-Kevin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:28:36 GMT