Hi Sam, Platt,
Thanks, Sam, for your well argued response to my concern that beauty and the
good should not over-rule truth. You say "I understand truth (and this is
really just my definition, it can of course be defined in alternative ways)
to be essentially about the realm of reason, in particular its coherence and
consistency: that is, empirical 'matching' with the reality of the universe
as we find it, and logical rigour, so that the understanding does not
contradict itself."
While I have no problem with your definition above, I suspect it may be that
our differences are actually located in our definitions of beauty and
aesthetics. I particularly like your emphasis when you say "I generally
think of 'truth' as meaning how good a fit our rational understanding or
intellect has with the way that the world is." This is very close to my
position too.
I'll respond briefly to your points, before putting forward an alternative.
1. I'm familiar with Kuhn, and acknowledge the validity of your point
here. Testing the truth of a new proposition in science, particularly when
it promotes a paradigm shift, is not purely about better evidence, though I
think in the longer term it is the potential for better evidence that the
new insight promises that is part of the attraction. So while there is a
dynamic lure in the new theory, as yet untested, it is not enough that the
idea be attractive - it must also be testable. Often the reason for the
attraction lies in the irresolvable difficulties with the old views, and
older practitioners who have learned to live with these can be reluctant to
look at any radical alternative. I disagree that the attraction of the new
is actually more to do with beauty or art, though. Perhaps elegance and
simplicity apply across art, morals and science, with rather different forms
in each? (See my postscript, below.)
2 I reread your post of 6.7 which is very valuable, and will take up
your key point. "I would argue that at the most fundamental levels, our
understanding of the world is not governed by rational criteria, but by
something which I would call aesthetic - a pre-intellectual, bodily
response. Perhaps this is simply a long winded way of saying Dynamic
Quality?" This seems to me to fit well with what Wilber calls the centauric
personality, the integrated mind/body response. As a Gestalt therapist, I
work to test the neurotic ideas produced by the mind against the often quite
different messages produced by the body, and it is the body messages which
are more true, and able to offer a corrective to the mental messages.
However, again I would query your use of the word 'aesthetic' in this
regard.
3 See my comment about 'elegance' above.
4 "the good trumps the beautiful" I did not see the relevance of your
story about lions and wildebeest for this assertion. I continue to disagree.
5 "the good is primarily communicated through narratives" I suspect you
are right.
Aside: "our culture is screwed up because it follows what I call "the
meta-narrative of rational primacy"." Yes, this is pretty true. And it
certainly is what Pirsig was seeking to undermine, where rational meant
objective and value free. I actually agree with your assessment of ZAMM and
Lila, too.
My alternative view is heavily influenced by Wilber, no doubt because I have
spent a good deal of time over the past year reading him. Wilber suggests
that the great achievement of modernity was the differentiation of science,
morals and art, "so that each could pursue its own course and establish its
own truths without domination by the others." (Sex, Ecology, Spirituality,
p415) He quotes Habermas thus, "Cultural modernity's specific dignity is
constituted by what Max Weber called the differentiation of the value
spheres in accord with their own logics."(p416) Thus, truth is elaborated by
science in the exterior world of observation and measurement, justice is
elaborated by morals in the interior world of intersubjectivity, while taste
is elaborated by art in the interior world of individual subjectivity.
Wilber argues that the dignity of modernity lay in this separation. It it
thus to be valued, which is what I am arguing.
But Wilber goes on to say that the disaster of modernity was its inability
to find a way of integrating them, and the subsequent slide into
dissociation, where nothing could be said to each other, leading to
alienation from the totality of an ethical context of life (the traditional
role of religion). This is surely the root of Pirsig's unhappiness with
modernity. "Modernity as it actually unfolded was heavily weighted toward
the knowing and minipulation of a 'disenchanted' and objectified world
dominated by an 'instrumental' or 'technical' rationality". (p417) "In
short, depths that required interpretation were largely ignored in favor of
interlocking surfaces that can simply be seen". (p418) The great loss in
modernity was the whole dimension of depth.
Kant's three critiques demonstrated the separation of these value spheres
most tellingly. Each of these realms can be judged separately to see if it's
telling "its kind of truth". (p391) In the realm of 'itness' (science) the
test is the accuracy of the proposition to match the facts. In the realm of
'I-ness' (art) the criterion is sincerity or truth, while in the realm of
'we-ness' (morals) the test is goodness, justness and relational care and
concern. (p392) But the central problem of postmodernity remains how to
integrate science, art and morality.
Kant (and later Schiller and Schelling under his influence) tried to do this
by using the aesthetic dimension as the healing link, yet the attempt fails.
"The sensory-aesthetic dimension is indeed a type of 'connecting link'
between the empirical phenomenon of sensorimotor cognition ('science') and
practical ethics ('morality'); in the developmental spectrum, as a matter of
fact, this aesthetic or 'endoceptual' cognition lies between sensorimotor
cognition and conventional moral structures. It is indeed their 'missing
link', or 'connecting link'; but a link is not an integration." (p 392) For
Wilber the integration awaits the development of centauric vision-logic, the
step beyond the rational-ego, at a higher level. (Habermas' theory of
communicative action, and Heidegger's centauric being-in-the-world, are both
attempts to integrate science, art and morals. Freud attempted to deal
therapeutically with differentiations that have developed into neurotic
dissociations.)
In Wilber's view, the recovery of an ethical life involves transformations
of consciousness. One has to grow or develop, to change one's perceptions,
because the deeper and wider and more encompassing motivations are not just
lying around to be seen by the senses or their extensions. A truly ethical
life demands transformation, and that requires a praxis, a transformative
practice.
Postscript: My favourite quote from Gestalt Therapy, by Perls, Hefferline
and Goodman. This is Goodman's formulation.
"Contact, the work that results in assimilation and growth, is the forming
of a figure of interest against a ground or context of the
organism/environment field. The figure (gestalt) in awareness is a clear,
vivid perception, image, or insight; in motor behavior, it is the graceful
energetic movement that has rhythm, follows through, etc. In either case,
the need and energy of the organism and the likely possibilities of the
environment are incorporated and unified in the figure ... [which] has
specific observable properties of brightness, clarity, unity, fascination,
grace, vigour, release ... [which give] an autonomous criterion of the depth
and reality of the experience." (pp231-232)
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:38 BST