Platt,
Lot's of great stuff to deal with here... It's long, but please stay with
me. For your convenience, I have carved it up in to sections with a few
(----)s.
First off...
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOU WROTE:
You seem to believe if I don't agree with your argument that I ignore it.
Not replying to your post--now THAT would be ignoring your argument.
And why the thinly veiled insult? And why the thinly veiled insult? "Is
that really the best you can do???"
How is that relevant to anything? And does using three question marks
instead of one somehow add anything to your argument other than
reveal a belligerent attitude?
RICK:
NO thinly veiled insults were intended.... I promise. I thought this
was sport. Haven't you ever missed a foul shot and had a friend lovingly
jive 'is that the best you can do'? It's what we, in the streets of NY,
might call 'trash talk'. It's friendly, not adversarial. Belligerence was
the last thing I intended.
I have worked up a semi-elaborate theory on why the 'conversational'
nature of the exploding email medium has left our written language painfully
inadequate. It's very difficult to get the playfulness and sarcasm that
would typically be communicated through tone of voice and body language to
travel over the internet... and sometimes people get inadvertently offended.
I think this something we all should keep in mind.
Personally I'm in favor a new slew of punctuation marks that indicate
things that would normally be transmitted via non-word communication... (ie.
a punctuation mark for sarcasm...etc). Incidentally, I occasionally
compensate for this inadequacy in the medium by doing things like
CAPITALIZING words for emphasis; using ellipses (...) as dramatic pauses;
and multiple ???s to indicate an emphatic or heartfelt question. I might
just as easily written 'is that REALLY the best you can do'... either way,
no offense was intended... it was just a 'love-tap'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> PLATT:
> The size of the figures depicted in the statue is irrelevant to its
> historical accuracy. Take a look at the Lincoln memorial sometime.
> Whose face is depicted? How large is it?
>
RICK:
Size is irrelevant to historical accuracy... but race is relevant? Who
decided that? King Platt? Maybe you'd deign to enlighten us on what other
aspects of a historical event are alterable without sacrificing 'historical
accuracy'? You could accomplish this with a list, or alternatively, a broad
principle which we may apply to specific cases and thereby deduce for
ourselves which qualities are or are not essential....
Geez man... "We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of
awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world." (ZMM p.69).
Now you're saying that we can each rightfully call our handful 'the truth'
as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
>
> PLATT:
> More accurately portrays the racial composition? Hardly. The politically
> correct statute portrays a racial composition of one third white, one
> third black and one third Hispanic. But, you reported that the actual
> racial composition of the firefighters who died in the fire was 319 were
> white, 12 were black and 12 were Hispanic.
RICK:
The ones who died weren't ALL white.... thus, any mix that contains
other races is a MORE accurate portrayal of the dead than an ALL white one.
Here's a great example of what your confusion is, drawn from an actual legal
case....
Years ago, in a certain state, there was a law that made it illegal for
a pharmacist to sell a mislabeled bottle of poison. Predictably, an
unwitting consumer was sold (and killed by) a bottle that contained a deadly
poison, but which bore a label for a harmless cough suppressant. The
pharmacist who made the sale was prosecuted under the law, but never
convicted... "Why?", you ask. Because, the pharmacist's lawyer was smart
enough to point out to the jury that pharmacist hadn't sold 'a mislabeled
bottle of poison'. Rather, he had sold a 'misfilled bottle of cough
suppressant'.... which was not illegal.
The point, of course, is that we get a different result, from the same
law, depending on whether we characterize the evidence as a 'mislabeled
bottle of poison' or 'misfilled bottle of cough suppressant'. The MOQ canon
that you now claim supports your position is subject to the same
sensitive-dependency of the characterization of facts as the law in the
example above. You see a 'historically inaccurate representation of a
photograph'... I see a 'memorial to the sacrifices of a multi-racial fire
department, partially modeled on the Franklyn photograph." It's 'tom-ay-to'
versus 'tom-ah-to'..... but you just won't give up on 'tom-ah-to'.
Your reading of events finds immorality because 'truth' is being
suppressed to 'social values'. My reading is that this is an intra-level
conflict existing entirely within the social level; my reading leaves out
vague and disputable notions of 'truth'... I posit that numerous value
patterns are in play here and that you unreasonably place far too much
emphasis on the single value of 'historical accuracy'. Your theory also
relies on the strange equation, 'truth = historical accuracy'... Which, I
believe, any freshman philosophy teacher would happy to dispute with you all
day long.
----------------------------------------------
> PLATT:
> ....I agree that the statute was to commemorate the MEN who died.
> Race had nothing to do with their bravery nor their deaths. Nobody,
> absolutely nobody, was concerned with petty racial diversity when
> those firemen entered the buildings.
>
RICK:
No argument here. On this point, we are in unqualified harmony.
-----------------------------------------------
> PLATT:
> Since I don't have a copy of the Guidebook to ZMM I would like to see
> the context of the quote. The relevance of Pirsig's statement to our
> debate depends on the entire letter and the circumstances that
> prompted it.
RICK:
Pirsig was offering to read the narration of ZMM during the movie
version. He comments to Redford that he can assure that each and every line
would be read exactly as the author intended if he (Pirsig) were allowed to
read it himself. He notes, though, that his voice is 'thin and high' and
that he understands why producers usually hire actors to do such work
instead.
Obviously, Pirsig understands that the public would be more apt to stay
and listen to the narrator if they liked the sound of the voice reading his
words to them. In this way, the primary INTELLECTUAL value of sharing ideas
(freedom of speech baby!!!!) remains unfettered by SOCIAL concerns like
selling tickets and getting good reviews or BIOLOGICAL concerns like
spending 3 hours in a theatre listening to a irritating voice. The goal is
to LIBERATE the Intellectual Values from Social (and lesser) concerns...
Is Society better served by a uni-racial memorial?... or none at all?
More importantly, how are Intellectual values furthered or served by 3 white
statues? Like having a euphonious voice read in Redford's movie, I believe
that sacrificing mere 'historical accuracy/authenticity' is irrelevant to
whatever Intellectual values the statue may serve... the change may even
further those values.
When you think of the memorial Platt, think of these beautiful words:
"What follows is based on actual occurrences. Although much has been
changed for rhetorical purposes, it must be regarded in its essence as
fact." That's the real point with the statue... Much has been changed, but
it must be regarded in its essence in fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PLATT:
> What surprised me, Rick, was that you didn't comment on whether in
> your opinion Pirsig is right in placing the intellectual level morally
> higher than the social level and perhaps more importantly, whether you
> think there is such a thing as "the truth." These are the overriding
> philosophical issues that our debate about the statue has raised and
> that I had hoped you would pick up on.
RICK:
I didn't comment on 'Intellect over society' because I didn't realize
that was in issue, I assumed we were discussing WITHIN the context of MOQ,
not necessarily the MOQ itself. But for what its worth... I think Pirsig
was 100% right in placing Intellect over Society. However, I feel you've
either misunderstood the Intellectual level, or (more likely) your purposely
misapplying it for the sake of argument (which is fine/fun by me). Pirsig's
intellectual level refers to things like the scientific process,
mathematics, and natural rights (freedom speech, press, assembly, etc...).
It protects Intellectual VALUES, it does not protect every alleged 'fact'.
I put all of this into recent post, but just for the record, I don't
believe in the 'truth' in any conventional sense. I believe a 'truth' is a
systematic-interpretation of 'facts' in the context of other 'facts' (ie.
'fact's are arranged in elaborate 'truth-systems'). 'Facts' are a special
case of an 'opinion' (ie. an opinion which has not yet been successfully
challenged, but offers no guarantees staying so invulnerable in the future).
An 'opinion' is a judgment made from 'evidence'. 'Evidence' could be
absolutely anything.
thanks if you've read this far,
this was fun,
rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:34 BST