All
I'm encouraged. We are making progress. Struan is helping (in spite of
himself) and even though we don't like his style, even he (though he
will probably vehemently deny it) is making progress towards a more
balanced position on the MoQ.
In part he has conceded that Pirsig is not an "absolutist" even though
Phaedrus makes strong declarative statements which can lead one to that conclusion.
He doubts that the MoQ is empirical, but claims that "Morality is
concerned only with human behaviour" and in discussions with Jonathan
"Agreed, in the sense that the whole of human understanding has a direct
influence upon morality and can therefore reasonably be seen as part of
the moral framework."
Now if Struan would agree also to the reverse, "that morals can have a
direct influence on human understanding", which, in part, is Pirsig's
argument and that Pirsig says ,in many different places, that static
quality is purely a human construct. It is humans "talking about"
reality and as such must in some way be based in human behavior and
understanding. If static quality is then analogous to James "concepts",
a decidedly empirical and purely human understanding or construct of
reality, which is never complete or completely true, just the best that
we can do. He could then concede his "not empirical" claim and ready to
apply his "pragmatism".
If he could then move on, given his understanding conventional ethics,
and in addition to "obligations" or "oughts" introduce moral
"imperatives". Understanding that these moral "imperatives" run in
reverse of "freedoms" or "rights" potentials gained as one ascends
Pirsig's levels. He would find and interlocking system of "obligations"
and "imperatives" and "goods" from quarks to concepts which could be
useful in understanding (and more importantly directing) our evolving
reality. That rather than thinking that "Morality exists only within
social/cultural context" there is much more potential in viewing reality
as at least four different levels of moral imperatives and obligations
which teleologically evolve to higher levels of freedom and good for
all. Not that this will ever be "absolutely true" just better, leading
towards a broader understanding of human reality.
Then as a "good empiricist" he has to give up on "facts" and admit that
even at their best they are and always will be in part "fiction" And
that this is a 'good' state of affairs because the ability of 'facts'
(static patterns of value) to change or evolve to more closely correlate
with dynamic reality is what human wisdom and understanding is all
about.
He probably won't see it this way, just now, but he is making progress
and maybe just maybe...
as the new millennium approachs, Who knows?
3WD
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 - 16:00:59 BST