Hi Platt,
Thanks for your largely courteous response.
Your main points.
1. Platt: "you "sensed" in Sam's contributions an underlying concern for
the MOQ value of truth, implying that those who disagree with Sam are
somehow less principled."
John: Only partly correct. What I saw in Sam's contributions was a very
careful attempt to balance reason and value. I cannot do better than to
quote his opening sentences again. "If the MOQ stands for anything it is for
the value of the truth - a system which is open to the truth and the reality
of the situation is one that is of higher quality than one which is not. In
this case, an analysis that is driven by emotional (biological) reactions is
one that is of lower quality than one that integrates those emotional
reactions with calm reason." Sam uses the word 'truth', and I have some
hesitation with it because it is usually assumed that the truth is an
absolute. So let us just stay with his alternative of being open to the
reality of the situation. In my view he is quite correct to assert that
there is greater quality in this than in being closed to aspects of reality
due to emotional reactions.
It is not a matter of those who disagree with Sam being less principled. It
is a matter of how open we are to the reality of a situation, including
those aspects that do not feel comfortable or compatible with our beliefs.
To me the truth about something is not given from above, but neither is it
just whatever it is I happen to believe at the moment. It is what is
potentially available to my exploration, provided I remain open. I am not
sure if Pirsig has anything to say about openness, but as you know, I have
never allowed my views to be dictated by Pirsig.
2 Platt: "I consider those attacks a crime against humanity based on the
biological "law of the jungle.""
John: The law of the jungle, as I understand it, refers to organisms meeting
their needs for food, etc by taking what they need from their environment
without moral scruples. I fail to see how hijacking airliners and flying
them into buildings of huge symbolic importance, while terminating my own
life in the process, can even remotely be conceived of as 'biological'.
3 Platt: "in Pirsig's view, SOM intellect has a defect in it."
John: You challenge me to provide a quote. I'm lifting it from your original
post on this matter, so I presume it is correct.
"Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics of Quality
supports this dominance of intellect over society. It says intellect is a
higher level of evolution than society; therefore, it is a more moral level
than society. It is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a
society to destroy an idea. But having said this, the Metaphysics of
Quality goes on to say that science, the intellectual pattern that has
been appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that
subject-object science has no provision for morals. Subject-object
science is only concerned with facts. Morals have no objective reality."
So are we just splitting hairs? I think not. The statement that you made and
that was criticised was actually "Intellect has a defect in it." I notice
you now say "SOM intellect", which is closer to Pirsig's usage, but still, I
think, a bit misleading. Pirsig actually refers to "science" as having the
defect, not once, but three times, in the above quote. And he is quite right
to show how a value free science is unfit to guide any society.
Your opening statement after the attacks was "I interpret the MOQ view to be
that those who are terrorists and those countries who support and/or
tolerate terrorists have the moral standing of germs and like germs must be
deliberately and ruthlessly annihilated by all means at our disposal." You
then used the "Intellect has a defect in it" statement to attack those who
disagreed with you, with their "arguments to the effect that economic
inequality is a justification for mass murder, and that if the "haves" will
only succumb to blackmail from the "have nots" then we can all live happily
ever after." Now the latter seems to me a very poor summary of what a number
of people actually said, and really demanded Sam's response "To seek to
explain the actions taken by the terrorists is in no way to seek to justify
those actions."
I actually believe that intellect has a much more profound defect than
Pirsig is talking about, but that is for another discussion. However I find
Pirsig's labelling of such values as "kindness to children, maximum freedom,
openness of speech, love of simplicity, affinity for nature" as incompatible
with "complex technological society" (Lila Ch 22) a sad indictment of his
own jaundiced values. If we take his implications seriously we should be
cruel to children, minimise freedom, repress free speech, despise
simplicity, and disdain nature. Not for me, mate! Chapter 22 is a deep
insight into Pirsig's own bankrupt morality, so it does not surprise me it
gets trotted out on occasions like these.
4 (I will not respond to this.)
5 Platt: "perhaps you'll explain why you see my reactions and Roger's as
"religious,"".
John: I am, of course using 'religious' in a broad sense. Your response to
the terrorist attacks seems consistent to me with what Bellah calls 'civil
religion', though the term originates with Rousseau. Describing the modern
USA, Bellah says "there actually exists alongside of and rather clearly
differentiated from the churches an elaborate and well institutionalized
civil religion". One of my staff who taught for a year in a US high school
some years ago was very struck by the depth of 'indoctrination' that went on
in schools, and the fervour associated with national identity. This is,
sadly in my view, becoming more evident in my own country.
The problem with religious belief is that if anyone attacks the beliefs,
they are seen as attacking not just ideas, but the fundamental meaning of my
life, usually, but not always, expressed in terms of God. I host a monthly
discussion group (which met just this morning). It exists for the
intellectual stimulation of its members. Over breakfast someone presents a
topic, which is often vigorously criticised by the rest. No topic is taboo.
We have debates on religion, politics, science, and so on. Disagreements are
sometimes pretty confronting, but in all the years it has run only once did
we nearly have an insoluble conflict. The conflict arose because a new
member with a very specific religious background was attempting to use the
group to convert others to her faith. I have always been careful to restrict
group membership to those who can both contribute from their own experience
and intellect, but equally are open to hearing other, often different,
views. This lady had been invited to one session, and kept coming despite
the increasing animosity that her constant imposition of her 'truth' had on
others. I eventually confronted her with what I saw happening. She was
shocked to learn how others viewed her constant references to her religion
as proselytising (which her religion, ironically, condemned) and graciously
withdrew. Equanimity returned.
I tell this story to help me clarify why I saw your reactions as religious.
In light of the debate of the past week or two, I would have to say that I
would not invite you to join my group, were that opportunity to arise, since
I believe thare would either be topics which would now be off limits to
discussion, to everyone's detriment, or should these topics be raised, that
all civility would be gone, and the group's survival at risk.
That is why I saw what Sam had to say as so important. Sam was taking a
stand on how values inform the quality of our debates in this forum. A forum
dedicated to quality had better pay some attention to this, or close shop.OK
I know the quote too. "Doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a
degeneracy of another sort". The key term, though, is doctrinaire. But when
Roger says "it seems that some people in this forum are on the side of evil
and exploitation and about suppressing freedom and dynamic creativity. This
forum is about morals.", then I think it is quite fair to challenge where he
is coming from. (Or your "blackmail" comment above, for that matter.)
Neither of you appear to have made much attempt to grapple with the points
made by a number of contributors that do not share your views, preferring to
either malign the individuals or grossly distort or misrepresent their
views. To me there is just a whiff of fundamentalism, (the one thing you
agreed I was right to condemn), in your response.
I am reminded of Wilber's astute comments on the internet and its users. "It
is almost entirely male occupied; it fosters anarchic and egocentric male
agency. The Net was built by males, for males, and it is occupied almost
exclusively by males". Secondly, "a great number of the Infobahn males are
digital predators - egocentric computer warriors that couldn't give a damn
about intersubjective cooperation and mutual recognition. So much for global
consciousness." Every so often I get the feeling that this is what drives
this group. And then I find some cause for hope. I hope I have not offended
you with my bluntness.
John B
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST