Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 03:01:09 +0100
Jason:
I enjoyed your most generous and thoughtful letter. It gives me a chance
to demonstrate another "pragmatic" way I use MOQ which goes back to your
original question, "How can MOQ be interpreted in such a way that it
becomes useful and practical in making everyday value judgments?"
You raise several apparent paradoxes in your letter which Pirsig might call
"platypi." Following your good advice, permit me to rephrase them so you
can tell if I understood them correctly.
The first one was: How can MOQ be critical of rationalism when it is itself
a rational system? The MOQ answer is that trying to create a perfect,
rational metaphysics can't be done. Pirsig says in Chapter 9: "The game is
supposed to stop when it is agreed that a particular line of reasoning is
impossible. This is supposed to be similar to checkmate. But conflicting
positions go on for centuries without any such checkmate being agreed
upon." I think Pirsig might say that although his metaphysics is
rationally constructed so as to communicate it to others in our current
culturally-approved universe of language and thought, it's value is
provisional and should only be accepted until something better comes along.
Your second paradox was: How can MOQ be critical of relativism when it
asserts that what is true is whatever a person believes is good? The MOQ
answer is that good is direct everyday experience and thus allows more than
one set of truths to exist. But since truth is a universal concept, it
transcends relativity. For example, in logic if one asserts that all is
relative, he asserts an absolute, nonrelative truth. Pirsig says in
Chapter 29: '"Truth's a metaphysical subject that everyone disagrees about.
There are lots of different definitions of truth and some of them could
throw a whole lot more light on what was happening to Lila than a
subject-object metaphysics does. If objects are the ultimate reality then
there's only one true intellectual construction of things: that which
corresponds to the objective world. But if truth is defined as a
high-quality set of intellectual value patterns, then insanity can be
defined as just a low-quality set of intellectual value patterns, and you
get a whole different picture." As an aside, when I first learned of
Godel's proof that in math and logic there will always be certain true
statements that cannot be proved to be true, my opinion of rationality as
high-quality value pattern dropped down several pegs.
Your third paradox was: How can MOQ be critical of pragmatism when I
attempt to show in this letter and the previous one the pragmatic virtue of
Pirsig's thought? The MOQ answer is that pragmatism is a social pattern of
good. For example, political correctness is a pragmatic method of
promoting social harmony, but by punishing heretical thought it blocks
Dynamic Quality. Pirsig says in Chapter 29: "The Holocaust produced a
satisfaction among Nazis. That was quality for them They considered it to
be practical. But it was a quality dictated by low level static social and
biological patterns whose overall purpose was to retard the evolution of
truth and Dynamic Quality." I assume Pirsig has no objection to my using a
personal form of pragmatism (such as I'm demonstrating in these letters) so
long as I don't try to impose it on others.
Jason, whether my pragmatic application of MOQ to these paradoxes is of
high or low quality is for you decide. I'm sure you'll find some of it
puzzling and perhaps downright mistaken. I'm also aware that in "Lila,"
like in the Bible, one can usually find an idea or a quotation to support a
particular viewpoint.
But for me that's the magic. Pirsig has given us a sweeping new
intellectual framework, magnificent in its breadth, depth and explanatory
power, but simple enough so even someone like me can begin to grasp it.
Logical positivists can have fun pointing out its contradictions,
weaknesses and restrictions, the ongoing discussion about the quantum level
being a good example. But for me that's exactly the point: the sheer fun,
indeed exhilaration, of seeing the world in a new way and exchanging ideas
about what it all means.
For the enjoyment you have given me in our exchange, I'm most grateful.
And if any others are reading this, many thanks to you for your excellent
contributions to this Website. Of course, a special thanks to Diana for
creating it in the first place.
Best, Platt
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST