Hi Jack, Brian, David L. and Group:
Jack, I agree with your rational analysis of the Leuchter case. The problem is
I don’t find that reasoning much help when it comes to Pirsig’s claim that
MoQ principles can predict high quality revolutionaries from the low.
For instance, there’s nothing in the MoQ about the importance of credentials
as a measure of high quality at the intellectual level. (Brian also stresses
credentials.) In fact, Pirsig rails against the “cultural immune systems”
created by academics who can certainly boast of credentials if little else. Nor
do I see where Pirsig uses credentials as a criteria for choosing the good-
guy revolutionary over the bad. After all, those who had credentials in
Galileo's time threw the book at him. Credentials seem to be the mark of a
static mindset in the MoQ, and we know that, all else being equal, static is
not high quality.
Nor do I see in the MoQ where preponderance of physical evidence (eye-
witnesses, photographs, documents, etc.) establishes the quality of a
revolutionary’s idea. In matters of historical record like the Holocaust,
“empirical” evidence is well accepted in the MoQ. No argument there. But
when it comes to the MoQ predicting, as David B. said, “the difference
between criminals and revolutionaries,” past evidence is of little help. No one
in the Zuni tribe could foretell that the brujo would become their hero. In fact,
history was all against the brujo. Recall also that Pirsig has little good to say
about the hippie revolutionaries of the 60’s with their message of peace, love
and free sex. At the time they looked like “good guys” to a lot of people. But
today, Pirsig writes about the not-so-good result of their “for the good of
mankind” ideas:
“What's coming out of the urban slums, where old Victorian social moral
codes are almost completely destroyed, isn't any new paradise the
revolutionaries hoped for, but a reversion to rule by terror, violence and gang
death—the old biological might-makes-right morality of prehistoric
brigandage that primitive societies were set up to overcome.” (Lila, Chap. 24.)
I want to assure you and others that I’m not defending Leuchter, nor am I
saying that the MoQ justifies his ideas in any way. The point of the case is
to show the danger posed by those convinced they “see the truth” for the
benefit of humanity. Pirsig claims the MoQ provides moral principles that can
distinguish a Galileo fighting social repression from a criminal fighting social
repression. The question I pose is, using the Leuchter case as a
springboard, “What principles?”
Is David Lind right in saying we just have to wait and see? I suppose then the
question becomes, "How long do we wait?".
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:17 BST