Struan:
I’m glad we’ve wound up our extended conversation on a positive note
instead of in a blizzard of insults as happened in the past. While it may be
the case that Pirsig is “rigorously unoriginal” to an Oxford metaphysician, for
an amateur like me his idea that reality consists solely of moral values is
startlingly new. I know of no one but Pirsig who comes right out and says
flatly that in the real world, “a chair is composed of individual little moral
orders.” He may be wrong, but I dare say to most Westerners he’s original.
To answer your direct question, the small step from a transcendent world of
values as the greatest good to Pirsig’s view is simply to see the material
world as value-constructed. Harvard professor of philosophy Robert Nozick
comes close to this view in saying, “Value establishes an order over things,
actions, systems, state of affairs, etc.” which IMO is only a heartbeat away
from Pirsig’s value patterns. True, Nozick makes a distinction between
morality and values, but opines that “the moral ‘ought’ is a response to
value.” In the past other contributors to this site have mentioned scholars
whose philosophical musings have knocked on Pirsig’s door, but couldn’t
quite make it over the threshold. (Unfortunately, I don’t have instant recall of
their names or works.) So what I called small step obviously failed to take
into account the wall erected by the “cultural immune system” which makes
any admittance by academe of an outsider like Pirsig a giant leap.
(Incidentally, I’m surprised to see you cite the popularity of Pirsig’s books as
a measure of their metaphysical worth—a rather obvious ad populum fallacy.)
The validity of SOM has been thoroughly argued on this site before. But, I’m
glad you mentioned it because it seems to be the keystone of your objection
to the MoQ. If I thought SOM was indeed no more than a “myth,” I would also
dismiss the MoQ as much ado about nothing. Yet it seems clear to me that
the prevailing way we (Westerners) divide the world is into subjects and
objects. Ken Wilber wrote, “Ever since Plato separated ideas from
experience, the argument as to which is really ‘real’ has continued, with no
side clearly winning.” Mary Midgley says it was Descartes who made the
split: “Our tradition, following Descartes, has drawn a firm line between
scientific knowledge and all the rest of our mental life.” Whether it was Plato,
Descartes or some other philosopher I can’t say. But it’s clear to me the
division is no myth.
Finally, for a report on the sad state of higher education in the States I
recommend for your consideration a book by Allan Bloom, “The Closing of
the American Mind, ” subtitled, “How Higher Education Has Failed
Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students,” of which
Conor Cruise O’Brien, Trinity College, Dublin, said, “This leaned, passionate
book, plainly and elegantly written … will have to be read by anyone
seriously concerned with universities, not only in America, but throughout the
Western world.” In general, there’s little pursuit of truth and beauty on our
college campuses today, but much wind about human rights and other social
issues.
With three grandchildren descending on me this Sunday for a month’s visit I
will have to absent myself awhile from our discussion. In the meantime, know
that I too think it’s “nice to have a bit of a dynamic debate every now and
then,” and I thank you for it. I hope I can provoke you into another round
soon.
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