**************
ROGER CONCURS THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT
BETWEEN MOORE, AYER AND PIRSIG IS IN THEIR BASE
METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS, BUT HE SUSPECTS THAT WE
MAY HAVE AN EMOTIVE ASSUMPTION IN OUR MIDST.
HE OFFERS ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS CHARGE AND
CLARIFIES CONCERNS WITH THE MOQ'S MORAL HIERARCHY.
****************
Hi Roger
Moore and Ayer seem to fall into the logical positivist school of
philosophy and it is worth noting that Phdrus once studied under
Frege, also a logical positivist and a member of the Vienna Circle. I am
not really qualified to comment one way or
another on naturalistic fallacy so I will skip the first 2 parts of your
post and move right into part 3:
Roger:
3) THE EMOTIVE PROBLEM --
The challenge we face on the emotive issue isn't that morality is
dismissed,
it is that we might be guilty of emotive assumptions in our system. The
MOQ
is a metaphysics -- an intellectual pattern. As such, statements of
feelings
are not sufficient. To base a metaphysics on emotive arguments would be
intellectually unsound.
The area where I am concerned the MOQ may be guilty of emotivism arises
with
Pirsig's statement that DQ is superior to sq -- that dynamic freedom is
better than static patterns. What support does Pirsig give for this
assumption? I can find none. Can anyone else? Is this not an emotive
statement? It would be one thing if he only stated that reality can be
divided into DQ and sq. Or if he only pointed out that the course of
evolution has indeed been toward dynamic advance. But he doesn't stop
there.
He states that "In general, given a choice between two courses to
follow and
all other things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that
is, at
a higher level of evolution, is more moral."
PLOP! There it is! The emotive assumption of the MOQ.
Or is it?????
Dan:
In order to attempt an answer to your question regarding the "goodness"
of Dynamic
Quality over static quality, it may be helpful to go back to Robert
Pirsig's original thesis concerning Native American contributions to
American
democracy. While Pirsig makes mention of William James Sidis and his 800
page book
on the history of the Americas from the Native American point of view,
there is very
much more written on this topic; particularly interesting to me is this
book called Forgotten Founders by Bruce E. Johansen, available to read
online at:
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FF.html
...where we read in Chapter 5:
"As with many scientific debates through the ages, the emotional
exchanges between
Europeans and Americans over the degeneracy theories reflected the
political and
social conflicts of the age. In the writings of Franklin there
seems to be an emerging
awareness of a distinctive American habit of mind, a sense that
these transplanted
Europeans, himself included, were becoming something not inferior
to Europeans, but
something very different."
"Something very different" refers to the Dynamic exchange of ideas
taking place on a new continent. Most Europeans arriving on the shores
of
this great new land considered themselves above the savages they
encountered for the sense of values the Native Americans lived by were
in total contrast to the values in Europe at the time. However, as the
new immigrants became "Americanized" this point of view began to change,
dramatically.
Johansen quotes Ben Franklin:
"The Care and Labour of providing for Artificial and Fashionable Wants,
the sight of so many rich wallowing in Superfluous plenty, whereby so
many are kept poor and distressed for Want, the Insolence of Office . .
. and restraints of Custom, all contrive to disgust them [Indians] with
what we call civil Society." (Benjamin Franklin)
Ben Franklin, being close to 70 years old at the time, deferred the
writing of
the Declaration of Independence to Thomas Jefferson, who at age 33 had
doubts as to his ability to accomplish such a task. However, both men
acknowledged their debt to the Native Americans:
Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787:
"The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to
give
them full information of their affairs thro' the public papers, and to
contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the
people. The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, our
very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me
to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or
newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to
prefer the latter. . . . I am convinced that those societies [as the
Indians] which live without government enjoy in their general mass an
infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under
European governments."
Johansen states:
"The Indian in Jefferson's mind (as in Franklin's) served as a metaphor
for liberty. "
Now, back to the 21st century and Roger's emotive problem:
"What support does Pirsig give for this
assumption? I can find none. Can anyone else?"
This assumption is grounded in our American system of democracy and it
seems a bit of
a shame to me that Pirsig did not further pursue his thesis, for it
seems our
system of
"grass root government" existed on this continent for hundreds and
thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of years before the Europeans
began arriving in the 15 and 1600s.
If you want proof of Pirsig's statement, look no further than your local
town meeting or newspaper. Pirsig is not making an emotive
statement at all, in my estimation.
Roger:
4) THE LOGICAL SOLUTION?
The only possible logical loophole that I can think of to dispel the
charge
of emotivism on this issue is if we establish that DQ and morality and
reality are just three different terms for the same thing. (note I did
this
at the beginning of this post.) If DQ = reality = morality, then it
would be
correct to state that more DQ is more moral. The range of potential
experience IS the range of morality. Do note that if we substitute
Quality
for DQ we get Quality = reality = morality. This does not lead to the
conclusion that dynamic is better than static.
Does Pirsig ever explicitly state this argument? Does he offer any
other
justification for his 'Dynamic is better' assertion?
Is my argument sound? What problems do you see with it?
Dan:
When we are young, we perceive Dynamic Quality all around us but when we
grow up and
begin intellectualizing about "it" we lose our perceptions and become
grounded in conceptions, losing our freedom. Dynamic Quality cannot be
conceived, only perceived. Just as soon as conceptions enter into the
picture, Dynamic Quality becomes something else, something static and
rigid, like the old European monarchies existing in luxury at the
expense of the masses.
Dynamic Quality must be kept concept-free while morality is a concept.
They cannot be equal, in my estimation. We are perceivers of Dynamic
Quality and conceivers of static quality. Perception arises very
mysteriously, spontaneously, while conception requires the foundation of
social and intellectual patterns of value; that which is is static
quality. The more we try and understand Dynamic Quality the further away
we get from "it". To get closer to Dynamic Quality one must let go of
ALL
static patterns of value. The question then becomes: Can we attain an
enlightened state and still be part of
the world as we know it?
Enlightenment arises when one is engaged in right practice,
so the old adage "practice makes perfect" only applies when such
practice is
right. By constantly evaluating the preconditioned environment in which
we find
ourselves at any time in a Dynamic fashion, (i.e. without prior
judgments) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is achieved.
Roger:
5) CAN WE "NOW DEDUCE CODES BASED ON
EVOLUTION THAT ANALYZE MORAL ARGUMENTS
WITH GREATER PRECISION THAN EVER BEFORE"?
6) IN CONCLUSION
Pirsig mentioned to us a while back that the MOQ is only 2% complete. I
suggest that it is up to us to start working on filling in all the
missing
pieces. The above critique sounds harsh, but I think the MOQ is the
basic
metaphysical foundation which we can and should build upon.
Dan:
I share many of your concerns in parts 5 and 6 regarding Pirsig's MOQ
but I am content (at this time) to just be pursuing happiness by
traveling
as Dynamic a path as I may. Just what does that really mean though?
Something different for us all, I suspect. For me, it means going where
I am called upon to go, with my full attention focused on whatever it is
I happen to be doing at any moment, for each of my actions, no matter
how
seemingly insignificant they may be, will with certainty lead to my
death. Therefore I strive to know exactly what it is I am doing at all
times, and why, then just do it without regard to the eventual outcome,
which I already know will be anyhow.
The pursuit of happiness does not mean the accumulation of property and
lots of money, nor does it mean being mirthful all the time. It simply
means freedom from want. And that's about as Dynamic as it gets.
Thanks for your great post, Roger.
Best wishes,
Dan
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST