From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 23:17:23 BST
Hi Mike,
Platt:
> Pirsig takes a dim view of James' pragmatism in
> Lila, pointing out that Nazis were pragmatic. (For similar reasons I
> object to postmodernists making pragmatism an object of worship.)
Mike:
> To put it mildly, this is a gross distortion. Pirsig shows total agreement
> with James' axiom "Truth is a species of good", and goes on to say how the
> MOQ supports James' pragmatism and RESCUES him from the Nazi criticism,
> which runs "if the Nazis had won WW2, their beliefs (about race etc) were
> pragmatically successful and therefore true". MOQ pragmatism, which Pirsig
> claims is what James intended but could not codify, does not validate truth
> claims based on social pragmatic success (what others allow you to "get
> away with"), but on intellectual pragmatic success (in James' words, that
> which "proves itself to be good in the way of belief"). The ambiguity of
> "good" is what got James into problems. The MOQ says that the good to which
> truth is subordinate is intellectual and Dynamic usefulness, not social
> usefulness.
Gross distortion? Here is the quote from Pirsig that led me to believe
that Pirsig took a dim view of James' pragmatism:
"The idea that satisfaction alone is the test of anything is very
dangerous, according to the Metaphysics of Quality. There are different
kinds of satisfaction and some of them are moral nightmares. 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. James would probably have
been horrified to find that Nazis could use his pragmatism just as freely
as anyone else, but Phaedrus didn't see anything that would prevent it.
But he thought that the Metaphysics of Quality's classification of static
patterns of good prevents this kind of debasement." (Lila, 29)
"Some satisfactions ... very dangerous ... moral nightmares . . .
Holocaust considered practical ... Nazis could use pragmatism freely ...
didn't see anything that would prevent it."
What about those words suggests Pirsig supports pragmatism?
You're right in that Pirsig agrees with James about truth being a species
of good. And you're right by asserting that Pirsig attempts to rescue
pragmatism from the widely held belief that it defines truth as
satisfactory results. But his rescue has failed because that's still the
dominant belief about pragmatism today, as evidenced by the definition of
pragmatism found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: " . . . the truth is
to be tested by the practical consequences of belief." It's the "practical
consequences" that Pirsig objects to, as evidenced by the following:
"What Phaedrus saw was the the Metaphysics of Quality avoided this attack
by making it clear that the good to which truth is subordinate is
intellectual and Dynamic Quality , NOT practicality." (Lila, 29, emphasis
added.)
Unfortunately, the widespread understanding of pragmatism hasn't been
affected by Pirsig's rescue attempt. For Postmodernists and others
(including dictionary writers) it still means socially satisfying
results, i.e. practicality. Neither James nor Pirsig have been able to
overcome that meaning of the word. And that's why I object to
postmodernists who make pragmatism (practicality) an object of worship.
Will be happy to discuss further if you wish.
Best,
Platt
P.S. I'm confident you won't succumb to Ian's and Mark's chronic
disposition to engage in personal attacks.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed May 18 2005 - 23:14:45 BST