Hi Glenn,
GLENN
I’m in complete agreement with your decision. Though it must
have been tough to choose the morally incorrect position,
considering MOQ puts intellectual patterns (philosophical
discussion above social ones (visiting grandchildren).
PH
In the MOQ moral hierarchy the higher intellectual level relies on
the welfare of the lower social level to ensure its own survival and
growth. So spending some time tending to and nurturing the
social level is hardly immoral by MOQ lights as you suggest.
GLENN
This criticism of science can also be leveled against MOQ,
because what MOQ calls real is *also* what is empirically
verifiable.
PH
Yes, but the MOQ defines empiricism more broadly than most
scientists do. Whereas science usually limits what is “empirically
verifiable “ to the physical senses and what can be measured by
instruments, the MOQ broadens the meaning considerably. From
Lila, Chapter 8:
“The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called
empiricism. It claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises
from the senses or by thinking about what the senses provide.
Most empiricists deny the validity of any knowledge gained
through imagination, authority, tradition, or purely theoretical
reasoning. They regard fields such as art, morality, religion, and
metaphysics as unverifiable. The Metaphysics of Quality varies
from this by saying that the values of art and morality and even
religious mysticism are verifiable, and that in the past they have
been excluded for metaphysical reasons, not empirical reasons.
They have been excluded because of the metaphysical
assumption that all the universe is composed of subjects and
objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an
object isn't real. There is no empirical evidence for this
assumption at all. It is just an assumption.”
Do you object to this broader definition?
GLENN
I don’t agree that what you have left room for are equally true
interpretations of reality. You’ve basically left the door open for
anything and reality becomes just ‘what you like’. Do you believe
it’s possible to have personalized realities? How can they all be
“equally true” if my version of reality conflicts with yours?
PH
Yes, it’s not only possible to have personalized realities but we all
do. As Pirsig said about Lila, “She’s a culture of one.” While our
physical, biological and much of our social reality may be the
same, the reality of our individual thoughts and emotions is
indeed personal. In that sense, as I’ve argued here before, “Mine
is the only world.”
But to survive, reality cannot be just “what you like.” We depend on
social agreement (consensus) for survival. So we (as a society)
have to get some agreement on the criteria for truth and what
constitutes a fact, and I think Pirsig describes that criteria as well
as anyone: “The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement
with experience, and economy of explanation.” To minimize the
role of faith you add “consensus” to that criteria, but keep in mind
that many truths of science were initially met with great skepticism
by the entrenched academy.
I think you raise an important point, however, because the
foundations of our Western society are being undermined today by
post-modern relativists who claim there is no reality that exists
independent of our perception of it and that truth is determined not
by adherence to set of historically tested criteria but by cultural
and/or personal whim. I fear we are approaching dangerously
close to all things being “equally true” with resulting chaos, paving
the way for self-appointed authoritarian types to come to the
rescue. Against this assault on the scientific method and
rationalism I’ll fight as ferociously as you.
GLENN
For each case above, is your use of “world” figurative or actual? If
actual, what are the salient features of a world? If I were to
propose a world to add to your list of many worlds (say, cartoon
world), what would be your criteria for accepting or rejecting it.?
PH
I believe (like Plato) that the worlds I listed--mathematical, moral
and aesthetic—exist independently of our perception, i.e., they
exist whether people exist or not. By contrast, the cartoon world,
sports world, entertainment world, business world, political world,
technological world, etc. are people-dependent. IMHO, the
absolutes of Beauty, Truth and Goodness are “out there” whether
we’re here or not. I realize this is an act of faith on my part, but my
senses tell me I’m right in the same way they validate an
independent material reality. What the MOQ has down for me is
open my eyes to how an independent, evolutionary “goodness”
might have created us and all that we know. In my book, it sure
beats the “by chance” explanation put forth by science which
amounts to no explanation at all.
I know you hold the view that morality is people-dependent, a view
shared by most. Pirsig claims greater explanatory power for his
assumption of an independent moral world structured as he
describes. What values do you see, if any, in that assumption and
his theory? Do you think his “platypus” arguments are correct?
Do you see any hope for a rational or scientifically-based morality?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST