Mfers
I find it interesting that although a large number of the listed "problems"
with the levels seem to stem from Pirsig's claim that "Quality =
Morality = Reality" yet we all seem to be avoiding the "moral" issue. So
I'll have a go at it.
First I suggest that, we have to understand that Pirsig is proposing a
shift away from the dominant Western "thing" based metaphysics towards a
more "process" based metaphysics. Blackwell Companion to Metaphysics
entry on "process philosophy" in part say this:
"From the time of Aristotle, western metaphysics has had a marked bias
in favour of things or substances. However, another variant line of
thought was also current from the earliest time onward. After all
concentrating on perduring physical things as existents in nature
slights the equally good claims of another ontological category, namely
processes, events, occurances- items better named by verbs than nouns.
And, clearly, storms and heat waves are every bit as real as dogs and oranges."
It continues to say that the basic propositions of "process" philosopy are:
1 That time and change are among the principal catagories of
metaphysical understanding.
2 That process is a principal category of ontological description.
3 That processes are more fundamental, or at any rate not less
fundamental than things for the purpose of ontological theory.
4 That several if not all of the major elements of the ontological
repertoire (God, nature as a whole, persons, material subtances) are best
understood in process linked terms.
5 That contingency, emergence, novelty, and creativity are among the
fundamental categories of metaphysical understanding.
Within the Western tradition this type of thinking can be traced
from the Presocratic, Heraclitus, though Leibniz, Bergson, Peirce, James,
Whitehead and his school,[such as Charles Hartshorne,see interesting
aside below] to other 20th century philosophers such as S. Alexander,
C.L. Morgan and A.P. Ushenko. Current projects such as Principia
Cybernetica Web (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PROCMETA.html) and The
Center for Process Studies, (http://www.ctr4process.org/) continue to
work in this tradition though from radically differing postulates and
positions. And, while "process" is a decidely minor opinion in the West
if we look to the East we find this position is ancient, well developed,
and ongoing in many different schools of thought rooted in that region.
But, from a Western philosophies PoV, because "Oriental" philosophies
were not "enlightened" enough to reject religion as having any role in
"reasoned" dialogue anything else they might have to say of course is
suspect.
How strange indeed then is it to read in a synopsis of the history and
current status of the "free will" argument, again from Blackwell's,
George Pappas ending the lead in paragraph with this:
"What gives the problem of free will its poignancy, however, is it
connections with several central human values. In this way, morality,
has often been the mother of metaphysics."
George, you're going way out on a limb there, Who holds this position?
Surely "no-one" in respectible Western philosophy.
Along comes Pirsig restating the above something like this:
Empirically all that be can claimed about the process of being is that
it is a system of "oughts". That the laws we call philosophy "ought" to
be based on the concept that "reality" is a process, forever changing,
contingent on evolving, emerging, and often conflicting patterns of
value. And, by the way so are morals.
‘It says, first of all, that "amoral objective matter" is a low-grade
form of [oughts]. and "there is not just one [ought]system. There are
many. ...there’s the [oughts] called the "laws of nature," by which
inorganic patterns triumph over chaos; there is a [oughts] called the
"laws of the jungle" where biology triumphs over the inorganic forces of
starvation and death; there’s a [oughts] where social patterns triumph
over biology, "the law"; and there is intellectual [oughts], which is
still struggling in its attempts to control society." Lila-pp 158
[obviously my oughts]
According to his critics, anyone who even considers the possiblity that
his claim might be worth exploring is a mindless twit with a propensity
for urinating on his shoes.
If this arrogance, and these types of conclusions are indicative of
kinds generated by current schools of Western philosophy is it any
wonder few find philosophic inquiry palatable, let alone useful.
dilegently scrubbing urine stain spats.
3WD
**********
[An interesting aside from the Center for Process Studies website]
>From - Whats New?
"Charles Hartshorne died quietly in his sleep on October 9, 2000, at the
age of 103. The Center for Process Studies is deeply in debt to Charles
Hartshorne. Most fundamentally, he has given us moral and financial
support. He also designated us as a repository of his papers. May we
deserve his confidence!
From- Charles Hartshorne's Biography page
"In 1928 Hartshorne accepted a position in the Department of Philosophy
of the University of Chicago, where, except for a Fulbright appointment
in Australia, he taught until 1955. Soon after moving to Chicago he
married Dorothy Cooper. Dorothy Hartshorne played an important role as
editor and bibliographer of his writings. They had one child, Emily.
" During his years at Chicago, Hartshorne had a somewhat lonely role in
the Department of Philosophy. Much of the time this was dominated by
Richard McKeon. In any case, Hartshorne's commitment to the construction
of a new metaphysics and philosophy of religion was out of step with the
general mood."
"Partly because of tensions in the Department of Philosophy at Chicago,
Hartshorne accepted an invitation to teach philosophy at Emory
University. As he approached Emory's mandatory retirement age, he moved
to the University of Texas, whose retirement policy was more flexible.
He taught there until 1978."
It seem that Pirsig was not the only one with an interest in a "new
metaphysics" who had a run in with the "Chairman".
[End Aside]
************
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST