Struan:
I appreciate your comments about William Inge, especially your final
sentence:
“ … all postulate a transcendent world of values as the greatest good. I have
no problem with that at all.”
Neither do I. Nor IMO does Pirsig.
Nor do I have a problem with admitting I believe in God if you define “God” not
as a divine person but as Pirsig does:
“Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of "rightness" which gives structure
and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the
universe which life has created.
That definition is similar to the world coming into being as the result of an
“ethical requirement,” an idea championed by the Canadian philosopher,
John Leslie.
I’ll take either one of those definitions of “God” though you won’t find them in
a dictionary.
What is yours? On what beginning assumption do you base your
metaphysics? Why is there something rather than nothing? What started it
all and “structured evolution” in your opinion? Do you attribute creation to a
divine creator? A principle? An accident?
I don’t deny that “mystery, awe, wonder and pursuit of beauty and truth are
the motivations for what they (scientists) do.” My only possible disagreement
with you is when I vigorously support Pirsig’s claim that these are MORAL
pursuits. And I doubt you assertion that “every single educator tries to instill
these goals in his or her students.” We certainly don’t see it here in the
states where public education at the secondary level is abysmal. Nor do our
colleges support your claim. To quote from Yale professor of computer
science David Gelernter:
“If we care about technology excellence, we are foolish not to train our young
scientists and engineers in aesthetics, elegance and beauty. The idea of
such a thing happening is so far-fetched its funny … Art history in the
colleges nowadays often seems like mud wrestling, as posturing professors
who care not at all about truth and beauty and a lot about politics, ideology,
and social agenda drag art down to their level, and the whole field sinks
slowly into the slime, you can only shake your head and wonder.” In the U.S.
at least, Pirsig's message is sorely needed.
Finally, as you demonstrated, there are some social situations when lying is
the better course of action. I agree with you--that’s TRUE. As I say, there’s
no escape from the morality of truth in philosphical (intellectual level)
discussions.
I’m encouraged by your general approval of Inge’s views and all those other
philosophers you mentioned. It’s only a small step from their “transcendent
world of values as the greatest good” to Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality—a
step that frankly I’m baffled at your resistance in taking. Is you objection that
the MoQ is nothing new, or that it’s just plain wrong? If the latter, specifically
at what point does it go astray in your view? Or, as newcomer Daniel
Colonnese just wrote, “If someone can produce evidence which disproves the
MoQ that’s just the thesis we’ve been waiting for.” Of all those who have
posted to this site so far, you are the most likely candidate to accept
Daniel’s challenge.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:44 BST