From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 16:17:23 GMT
Hey Platt,
PLATT
> You're invoking the old zero sum game. But the world doesn't work that
> way. Plenty of men don't want to marry. Plenty of women would like to
> get married, but end up old maids. Lots of couples mate but never marry
> to the detriment of children. The "imbalance" you speak of is largely
> theoretical conjecture on your part.
RICK
Actually Platt, the imbalance is "statistical" which is completely different
than 'theoretical conjecture'. When working with statistics, random
influences on the numbers should cancel themselves out (else they are not
really random and should be explainable). That is, statistically speaking,
if 'x' number of women don't want to get married, then 'x' number of men
probably also don't want to get married. We can then take all of them out
of the equation because they have no effect on the number of potential
spouses. And when you say plenty of women would like to get married, but
end up old maids. I'd say plenty of men would like to get married, but end
up equally alone (an 'old butler?' :). Assuming that there is some age at
which a person is no longer marriable (whatever age an unmarried woman
becomes an old maid) we can take this group out of the equation as well
because they also don't have an effect on the number of potential spouses.
PLATT
> In what ways, specifically, does tearing down the established social
> pattern of marriage promote Dynamic Quality? We saw how the attack
> on social patterns in the 60's in the name of Dynamic Quality caused
> degeneration. Merely saying let's "open the door to DQ" is not enough.
> Change for the sake of change doesn't justify destroying a social pattern
> painfully constructed over generations by people trying to control
> biological threats and assure their society's continuance.
RICK
Perhaps you ought to read that chapter on the hippies a little closer Platt.
PIRSIG (LILA ch24)
The Hippie rejection of social and intellectual patterns left just two
directions to go: toward biological quality and toward Dynamic Quality. The
revolutionaries of the sixties thought that since both are antisocial, and
since both are anti-intellectual, why then they must both be the same. That
was the mistake.
RICK
As you can see here, Pirsig EXPLICITLY tells us that the hippies mistake
was NOT that they brushed off existing social patterns. Their mistake was
confusing biological-Q with DQ. They brushed off existing social patterns
and replaced them with biological patterns instead of higher quality social
patterns, that's why they failed.
Not only is there nothing in Pirsig's writing that tells us we shouldn't
change our social patterns, but as I showed you last time, he explicitly
tells us to examine those old codes to see if they have any value at all.
And he explicitly tells us that, in general, a dynamic choice is more moral
than a static one.
PLATT
No. The
> burden is on those who want to tear down the social order to convince
> others of the benefits.
RICK
No Platt, I showed you the quote! Pirsig says that all other things being
equal, the more dynamic is the more moral. Obviously this means anyone who
wishes to make moral decisions will choose the more dynamic options unless
they have a reason to believe that 'all other things' are NOT 'equal'. How
much clearer can he get? To put the burden the way you want it would
directly contradict Pirsig by making the status quo the default choice. You
may like it better like that, but please don't claim that Pirsig thinks that
(someone may believe you).
> > PIRSIG (LILA ch24 p355)
> > What the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that the old Puritan and
> > Victorian social codes should not be followed blindly, but should not be
> > attacked blindly either. They should be dusted off and re-examined,
fairly
> > and impartially, to see what they were trying to accomplish and what
they
> > actually *did* accomplish toward building a stronger society.
> >
> > RICK (from last time)
> > This fair and impartial 'dusting off' and reexamining of those old
> > puritanical codes is what I've been trying to do in this thread. The
idea
> > is to see what social goods the patterns claimed for themselves and what
> > social goods (if any) they were actually accomplishing. After we've
> > answered those question than we'll really be ready to determine whether
the
> > particular practice is worth preserving. Simply appealing to the MOQ
cannot
> > make the decision for us. All it will tell us is that we shouldn't
attack
> > or defend these practices "blindly," for whatever that's worth.
Appealing
> > to 'proven patterns' won't get us anywhere either since those are the
very
> > things we are supposed to be scrutinizing.
> > Are laws against homosexual marriage really accomplishing anything
> > towards building a stronger society or are they just someone's ancient
> > prejudices masquerading as 'social controls of biology'? Davor and I
> > think the latter, you think the former.
PLATT
> Yes. You and Davor have to convince a lot of other people, too. What
> you see as a "masquerade" many see as a necessary static latch.
> Dropping in ad hominem remarks like "puritanical codes" and "ancient
> prejudices" doesn't forward your argument.
RICK
'Ancient prejudices' was mine. But if you'll read the quote above a little
closer you'll see the notion of the code being 'puritan' (or puritanical)
comes from Pirsig. So tell it to him, okay?
RICK (from last time)
> > Do laws against 'multiple-partner marriages' actually accomplish
> > anything towards a stronger society? I think so and I have tried to
> > explain at least one of the reasons why I think those 'old Puritan and
> > Victorian social codes' against bigamy do have value. That is, I've
tried
> > to explain what it is about bigamy that's dangerous to a society
(something
> > you seem to be unwilling or unable to do for me with respect to your
views
> > on gay marriage, i really wish you had answered my 'multiple choice'
> > question from my post to you on 3/15). I think the laws against bigamy
> > were trying to keep the social statistics in such a balance as to give
each
> > individual an equal opportunity to find a mate. Preventing social
unrest
> > is one very practical reason for doing so.
PLATT
> "Preventing social unrest" can also be used as an argument against
> allowing gay marriages.
RICK
How? (Still won't answer my multiple-choice question? how disappointing).
RICK (from last time)
> > Another reason might be to keep greater variety in the gene pool (10
> > women bearing children for different fathers will surely produce greater
> > variety than 10 women all bearing children for the same father).
Greater
> > variety in the gene pool will surely increase the potential for creating
> > Dynamic individuals. I mean really, where would we all be today if
Maynard
> > Pirsig was prevented from mating with Harriet Sjobeck-Pirsig because she
> > was already the 3rd wife of some other man?
PLATT
> I take it your against sperm banks?
RICK
What? Why?
PLATT
And I love the way you keep upping
> the ante from permitting 2 wives to 7 and now 10.
RICK
I told you last time, the numbers are unimportant (so long as it's more than
one). You can read all the numbers as 'x' if it makes you feel better.
PLATT
That just highlights
> my slippery slope argument against changing marriage laws. Once you
> open the door, people will find a rationale for all sorts of legal
marriage
> arrangements, none benefiting society IMO.
RICK
Your entitled to your opinion. But if you expect anyone to take it
seriously you're going to have to find a better way to justify your beliefs
than just pointing to the status quo. Especially since Pirsig has told us
that the more Dynamic choice is generally the more moral.
take care,
rick
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 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 16:15:42 GMT