From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 22:19:08 BST
Andy and all MOQers:
dmb says:
I've trimmed your post into two chunks. The first one is a collection of all
the statements that seem to get right at your main confession, your main
point. The second chunk is your (Andy's) concluding paragraph.
Andy said:
I, being a pacifist, would resort to (bullets) only as a last resort.
However, I might not protest too much if others took up arms to quiet a
growing influence of Nazi and fascist ideas. ...I can't take the high
ground. Because I also feel that society would be better off if certain
individuals who held dangerous ideas would come to meet sudden and tragic
ends. I don't think I would shed any tears over their loss. ...I have to
admit that I think Platt's ideas are dangerous. I don't think he is too far
removed from fascism. ...I can't take the high ground if I think the world
would be better off without individuals who hold views such Platt's. ...I
don't think I would shed many tears if those responsible for these policies
met a tragic end. ...I was appalled until I realized that I might have the
same feelings if an archconservative met a similar fate. (as Wellstone's)
dmb says:
I imagine everyone can relate to what you're saying. There is a dark side, a
hateful, murderous, genocidal impulse in the human heart. Maybe its a
vestige of our evolutionary past as animals and fierce tribalists, when
killing your competitors was a good thing, a moral thing to do. We rightly
think of such impulses as evil now and in Pirsigian terms, that's because
such impulses are lower level values trying to assert themselves, are the
voice of the Giant within us. (Jungian psychology says that the ability to
experience and admit one's dark side (without acting on it) is a sign of
good mental health.)
Obviously, we don't translate that feeling into a criminal act because we
know better, just like we wouldn't turn lust at the supermarket into an
actual sex act. Naturally, the question of dangerous ideas is more
complicated than making the simple observation that crimes are crimes. The
interesting thing here is, I think, is the subtle way this gets at sorting
out the value levels within ourselves, the way the values levels are so
intimately connected to our passions, even dark feelings like ill will and
murderous hate.
And please believe me when I tell you that the following is not just a cheap
segue to the second chuck of Andy's comments, but is very much related to
the point I'm trying to make here. The MOQ can't rightly be used by NAZI's
not just because they are used as a concrete example, but because the MOQ
adds that example to so many others that we get a picture of what social
values are all about and how they can then be recognized in whatever form
they appear, even in our own culture and in ourselves.
And finally, it is exactly this orienting generalization that allows us to
see fascism in our own culture, place and time and not just in 1940s Europe.
I mean, the neo-con pussy-hawks, who have only succeeded in making the world
a more dangerous place for Americans, are a prime example. Except for the
occaisionaly bit of lip service paid to principles like freedom and
democracy, this crew exhibits social level values at almost every
opportunity. They're all about God, guns and money. They're secretive,
deceptive and punitive toward their critics. They've shown contempt for
rights and democracy at home and contempt for international law and
co-operation in front of the whole world. With with us or you're against us
in the pre-emptive wars against the world's "evildoers"? And these
"crusades" are to be waged by Generals who think "the American people didn't
put George W. Bush in the White House, Jesus did.". I mean, if you ever
wondered what American fascism would look like, just watch the news - FOX
news. :-)
Andy began his conclusion:
I don't think Pirsig offers us any way to get through this or tells us how
to answer the question of what makes an idea dangerous? I think that is why
I gravitate towards Rorty and Matt. Philosophy has nothing to say on what
trait dangerous idea might share.
dmb says:
Hmmm. I think the MOQ's picture of levels in conflict explains mountians
about what ideas are considered dangerous to whom and such. The old-timers
who tried to keep a lid on the Zuni Brujo must have thought he was full of
dangerous ideas. The Victorians who agreed that "the only good Indian is a
dead Indian" must have thought the "savages" had all kinds of backward (and
evil) ideas. The Jews of Europe must have thought anti-semetic ideas were
dangerous, etc.
But what really grabbed me here is the last sentence. "Philosophy has
nothing to say on what trait dangerous ideas might share." It grabbed be
because Rorty says the same thing about truth. He says...
"For pragmatists, "truth" is just the name of a property which all true
statements share. ...Pragmatists doubt that there is much to be said for
this common feature. They doubt this for the same reason they doubt that
there is much to be said about the common feature shared by praiseworthy
actions... They see certain acts as good ones to perform, under the
circumstances, but doubt that there is anything general and useful to say
about what makes them all good."
Truth is a common feature of true statements. There is little to be said
about this common feature, nothing general or useful. True statements and
morally praisworthy acts are just a common features of things about which we
have some intersubjective agreement about truth and morality. Truth and
morality are not things in themselves, but are attributes of particular
statements and acts. Truth and morality, in and of themselves, don't really
exist. They are subjective qualities. Ha! Isn't this the very mess Pirsig
starts with? I realize that post-modern linguistic espistemology isn't the
same thing as teaching freshman composition, but the point remains, no? In
MOQ terms, truth and morality are not just subjective attributes of
objective realities, they are just as real as rocks and trees.
Andy continued his conclusion:
Instead we have to come to some agreement through a democratic process. We
must be allowed to debate and discuss the merits and the faults of all
ideas. The other option is to look for some ultimate arbiter of truth, but
this can only lead, it seems to me, to some level of fundamentalism -
whether we base this arbitration on the Bible, the Koran, or the MOQ. I am
not looking for any comments, just kind of thinking out loud. I think when
we use the MOQ as an arbiter, this is what Matt refers to as the Kantian
reading of Pirsig. I think when we use the MOQ to shed insight into which
ideas are better for us to hold at this moment in time this is what Matt
refers to a pragmatist reading of Pirsig. Although it is a struggle, and I
(along with Platt and many others) might wish for a Kantian reading, I think
the pragmatist reading holds more promise in the end.
dmb says:
The ultimate arbiter of truth? I honestly don't see how such a concern is
relevant to the MOQ. I know. The Pragmatists think the choice is between
intersubjective truths and the ultimate absolute truth, and that we really
have no choice because there is no such thing as the ultimate truth. I think
this is a false dilemma generally, and has nothing to do with the MOQ in
particular. To believe that Pirsig is offering his MOQ as some kind of final
arbiter requires one to ignore most everything he's saying. His picture
includes the primary reality, but unlike anything like a foundationalist
metaphysics, that reality in the undefible mystical reality. Everything
else, the world we can define and know in the ordinary sense, is an
evolutionary jungle with contingency and provisionality built right in. Is a
static reality where cultures and languages and ideas blend with and are
absorbed by other cultures, languages and ideas. And in that forrest of
evolving manifestation, truth is a real thing. Its a species of Quality,
intellectual static quality. It is neither the "Absolute truth" nor the mere
"property" of a statement.
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Sat Oct 25 2003 - 22:22:23 BST