3WD and all:
3WD wrote:
I haven't read your post to Lawry and very few in the Middle East
thread. If I'm upset it surely wasn't with you, you're too predicable
to get upset over, as the balance of your response illustrates.. It
just that, to me it seems a great deal of your posts lately contain, or
evolve, or highlight, or focus, or refer to the the socio/political
liberal/conservative patterns of value in one way or another.
DMB writes:
Predictable? A more generous reader might say that I'm consistent. The main
reasons that I tend to focus on the battle between the social and
intellectual levels are (1) Pirsig spends a great deal of time on it and it
is one of the MOQ's most innovative features (2) It explains so much of what
is happening in the world right now (3) When it comes to practical and
pragmatic issues, it is probably the single most important feature of the
MOQ. (4) It seems to be a source of confusion here and few participants seem
to understand it. - Oh, and its very obvious that my last post was just a
goof, but maybe its worth saying anyway. Only the first and last sentences
were to be taken seriously, which you clearly have done. Thanks for having a
sense of humor.
3WD continued:
Most
often they paint the latter negatively and the former postively while
making the claim that the MoQ supports, recommends, the liberal POV.
Often suggesting that the if an idea is liberal or progressive it is
automatically rises to the intellectural level, while conservative
values are alway social values.
DMB writes:
Of course there lots of exceptions and its all more complicated than you
suggest, but yes, its basically true. Progress is good and reaction is bad.
It was published today in the journal "Duh!". This basic idea can easily be
seen in Wilber's work, in studies that compare cognitive abilities with
political ideologies, in the work of John Stuart Mill and in lots of other
places. JSM once said, "Conservatives aren't necessarily stupid, most most
stupid people are conservative". Even Pirsig is far more harsh about it than
I, as in "Bunch of ignorant hicks", the source of "exploitation" and
"genocide". He even describes Hitler as the epitome of this social level
reaction. I think a person has to have some pretty fierce filters going to
ignore language like that.
3WD wrote:
Under this system I suppose you would
classify the work of a philosopher like Charlie Hartshorne as on social
level while the work of Rorty would be on the intellectual, though they
are both published philosophers in pragmatic tradition, Rorty avowed
liberal, Hartshone avowed conservative. But in the end Hartshorne
arguably had a greater influence on Rorty at University of Chicago than
McKeon. I thought that the MoQ dissolved dualisms, it sure seems to have
missed your's.
DMB writes:
I honestly don't know enough about these guys to classify their views, but
if your description is accurate it points out one of the exceptions to the
general rule. Being smart and/or educated doesn't necessarily make you a
progressive. For example, William Pierce has a PhD in physics, but he's also
the neo-Nazi author of "The Turner Diaries". You may recall that book as a
favorite of right-wing militia guys including Tim McVeigh, the Oaklahoma
City bomber. On the other hand, I don't think Michael Moore, a humorist and
liberal crusader, ever got very far beyond high school. But as a rule, there
is a strong correlation between high cognitive function, which I expect from
anyone engaged in metaphysical speculations, and progressive ideologies. (It
may interest you to know that the vast majority (75-80%)of National Public
Radio listeners have post-graduate degrees. The right likes to label NPR as
liberal, but its really just radio for smart people.) At this point you
might be tempted to forget everything Pirsig says about quality, excellence
and evolution and just label me some kind of elitist. OK. I admit it. I like
smart people better. I think people who know what they're talking about are
far more fun and interesting than the rest. Call it what you will.
About pragmatism, 3WD wrote:
You start with questions like: If this were to come to true what
possible differences would it make? What would be the consequences?
Intended? Unintended? Which are good? See how that works?
DMB writes:
Hmmm. Isn't that obvious? Common sense? Common knowledge? If this represents
the fruits of neo-Pragmatism... Yawn!
3WD wrote:
About Pirsig viz pragmatism. His claim as presented in Lila and as
evidenced by his actions since he published it, compared with historic
pragmatism and it's ongoing evolution, sure are making the claim harder
and harder to support. But you already knew that, Right? I'm a little
slower and more methodical in my evaluations. Currently there are three
Neo-Pragmatists who might be called "Public Intellectuals" Rorty, West,
and Putnam. I look at it as one down, two to go. Hey, and I actually might
learn something of value along the way.
DMB writes:
What sort of claims to you see Pirsig making in Lila? His actions since he
published? What do you mean? I already knew what? And what does the
classification "Public Intellectuals" have to do with it. I mean, it seems
that Pirsig's main criticism of James stems precisely from his attempts to
sell pragmatic philosophy to the "man in the street" in terms of
"cash-value" and such. To be perfectly clear, these are genuine questions.
Thanks for your time.
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 - 16:02:15 BST