Dear Struan, Rick and all,
I haven't been a very happy lurker these last few days. Struan, you are
obviously intelligent and well versed in philosophy, but I do not admire
the way you have been flaunt these virtues. As a matter of fact, when
you use these gifts to patronize and obfuscate, they cease to be virtues
at all.
RICK:
<<<I've been thinking about [Struan's]accusation that the MoQ confuses
the
good of UTILITY with the good of MORALITY. And I have to say it's a
formidable objection. >>>
IMHO, you let Struan off without even questioning his premise.
STRUAN:
<<<If you don't recognise anything other than
functional uses of the term 'good' then, a priori, you do not recognise
moral uses of the term,
'good.' If you do not recognise moral uses of the term, 'good,' then
your metaphysics is without
morals and thus amoral.>>>
Struan, please explain this to a simpleton like myself why it is
necessary or even useful [!] to distinguish between functionality and
morality. I am quite happy to stick with the examples already raised:
<<<a) 2 + 2 = 4 is an answer of high Intellectual Integrity, and
(b)returning a $5 bill that I found in the street is an act of high
MORAL Integrity?
I still have the same problem as before. Both involve integrity, but in
distinctly differing ways.
The same applies to 'value' (from which you say integrity is derived). A
dollar bill has utilitarian
value, but that is of an entirely different order to the value of racial
equality. >>>
IMHO, these patterns can all be judged in terms of their utility.
Arithmetic, return of lost property and principals of racial equality
all have profound effects on how society functions. I would like Struan
to provide an example of something "moral" that does not have functional
implications - if he can!!
Struan, I've probably read much less Bentham and Mill than you
(actually, I've read none!). I assume that utilitarianism is based on
the equivalence of morality and functionality.
-------------------------
On a different note, I also fail to see any utility in STRUAN'S argument
that...
<<<The subject/object dichotomy is a psychological phenomena. It
describes how a
conscious human being relates to his environment. It therefore takes as
its starting point the
existence of a human being. This is not metaphysics but psychological
analysis.>>>
First, let me say that I infer that Pirsig really means subjectivity vs.
objectivity rather than subject vs. object. This seems abundantly clear
from Pirsig's writings - anything else would be superficial, even
nonsensical. I hope Struan agrees with me on this, otherwise I see
little point in continuing, and will leave him to pursue his "Pirsig
writes nonsense" argument on his own. On the other hand, I am amused
that Struan has already pursued this argument for the last 3 years!!!
Let me continue on the assumption that there is a worthy discussion to
be had:
Struan, surely you must understand the difference between objective and
subjective evidence.
If I stand up in court and say that I saw you throwing a brick through
the jewellry shop window, that would be admitted into evidence. If I
said that I *dreamed* the same thing, that evidence would be rejected.
The premise is that only the objective evidence reflects reality - the
dream is about something "unreal". The whole issue of what constitutes
reality (ontology) is very definitely part of metaphysics.
This subjectivity-objectivity ontology is ubiquitous and extremely
useful. It is the foundation of the Church of reason. Without it, our
lives would still be ruled by astrologers, soothsayers and shamans, as
were the lives of our ancestors just a few hundred years ago. This SO
ontology is so important and so intrinsic to our whole way of thinking
that I find it laughable when members of the MoQ discussions simply say
"SOM is wrong". I do not think this is Pirsig's approach. Pirsig
recognised the successes of SO ontology, but also its weakness -
revealed when one tries to analyse human behaviour and thought. It
appears that Pirsig's own motivations for proposing his MoQ were
considerations of anthropology and mental illness, situations in which
the classical SO methodology became an encumbrance rather than a useful
tool.
Struan's accusation that Pirsig's philosophy is unoriginal remains.
Pirsig tells us that a reviewer compared his Quality idea to James's
"Radical Empiricism". Pirsig himself suggests that he is championing the
philosophy of the sophists of ancient Greece. All this may be true, and
yet ZAMM is probably regarded as one of the important books of the 20th
century. Is Struan asking us to accept that he has spent 3 years
participating in this discussion because he thinks that ZAMM was a nice
story?
Jonathan
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