Hi Rick and FOCS,
>
> RICK:
> ... the distraction
> is science vs. emotivism. The more people play on this angle of the
topic
> the further we get from answering the question. Instead of discussing
> whether the levels can be involved in actual moral reasoning we get
stuck
> agreeing that thinking/feeling are related to each other and in many
senses
> dependent on one another. Nobody has argued against this as far as I
know
> and I see no reason to keep bringing this up, other than to dodge the
actual
> topic.
But I think there is a pervasive, unconscious
tendency to put the thought/feeling interrelationship aside
and continue as if the two things are completely separate. I hope that
Rick isn't offended if I use his post as an example:
>> JONATHAN:
> The "experience" - the Quality Event - is
> > the synthesis of feeling and thinking.
> RICK:
> I disagree, and I believe RMP does as well. The Quality Event comes
before
> thinking which is why it was called the "preintellectual" in ZAMM. The
idea
> being that the Quality event happens, and then our "mind" attaches.
Probably this is a fair summary of Pirsig's literal words, but I find it
problematic.
Surely "Quality" doesn't flash by and stop in a single "event" that
precedes the intellectual.
If we accept that, then all Pirsig's talk about the "Classical" view of
Quality is absolute nonsense.
Rather, we should regard Quality as a PROCESS that starts in the
preintellectual and then *continues* though *with* the intellectual. One
starts with eVALUation of the primary preintellectual reality, and
continues with evaluation of the intellectualized understanding of that
reality. It is ongoing. It encompasses both the Romantic and Classical
viewpoints.
> The more
> interesting question (to me at least) is whether or not the Quality
event
> also preceeds emotion. Pirsig thinks of it as preintellectual, but is
there
> any reason it can't also be the "preemotional"?
Using the term "Q-event" contributes to a tendency to make a temporal
divorce between a (pre) emotional "preintellectual" phase and a rational
"intellectual" phase. Rather, we might do better to talk about a
"Q-Process" that starts with primary experience and encompasses all
later intellectualization.
> >JON:
> > Pirsig's 4 levels provide some structure for doing the logic. One
can
> > use them to construct RATIONALIZATIONS of some scenario and thereby
> > produce possible answers to a question.
>
> RICK:
> Huh? If you are "rationalizing" you have already decided on an answer
to a
> question.
Not quite, I am thinking of *possible* answers. You are thinking of
pejorative rationalization, intended from the outset to justify some
particular viewpoint. I was using rationalizations in the plural, where
one is initially aware of several possible viewpoints and considering
how each can be justified. Of course, sometimes one "discovers" a new
unexpected answer as a result of the rationalization process.
> RICK:
> I don't know... my frustration comes from the fact that I can't see
how
> Pirsig's claim to "great precision" in moral reasoning are supported
without
> a way to apply the levels to "real life".
Perhaps Pirsig finds it easier to rationalize his opinions using his own
MoQ. Rather self-serving, don't you think.
I prefer to judge the MoQ more on its power to help us uncover new
answers.
>
> JONATHAN:
> > As soon as we put aside our quest for causality, we can then accept
that
> > thoughts and feelings naturally drift along together, and thus the
> > answer to the question of the month may simple be "MU, unask the
> > question".
>
> RICK:
> Please forgive me Jon, but this feels like the same baseless garbage
that
> Pirsig was given when he asked if the suffering of the people killed
by the
> A-bomb was an illusion and his teacher answered 'yes"..... MU may
unask the
> question, but it leaves us no more enlightened......
Rick, I know that don't intend to cause offence by your "baseless
garbage" charge. However, in rejecting the charge, I note that your
argument my answer MU to the "Science or Emotivism" question is similar
to the answer Phaedrus received about the A-bomb, I don't see the
parallel. Isn't his just "empty" rhetoric.
However, if you are interested, I am very glad that young Phaedrus
refused to accept the A-bomb was an illusion, though perhaps the
question he asked and the answer he was given belonged to different
philosophical contexts. Had he asked if the suffering of the A-bomb
victims was *good*, he might have got a more acceptable answer.
In the group, we discussed a very different question about whether the
actual dropping of the A-bomb was moral or not. That discussion was very
enlightening, with opposing viewpoints presented (principally from David
B. and Ken Clark) with everyone claiming the support of MoQ reasoning.
This is a good illustration of my point about alternative
rationalizations.
>
> Still Good,
Well, I'm trying to be !
Jonathan
------- End of forwarded message -------
*************************************************************************
I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to
the irresponsibility of its own people.
(Henry Kissinger - referring to the results of Chile's democratic election)
Henry Kissinger, a strong case for the introduction of retospective abortion.
(Horse - contemplating the result of the union of Mr. and Mrs Kissinger)
*************************************************************************
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST