Hi Wim:
> The MoQ (i.e. its criteria for distinguishing Quality, with intellectual
> quality put into perspective) can be applied rationally. It is founded
> however in an element of post-rationality: the distinction of Quality in
> Dynamic Quality and static quality. This is not a real/rational
> distinction, because it can only be grasped in metaphors like 'DQ being the
> cutting edge of reality'. It requires Nishida/Scott's 'logic of
> contradictory identity'. (See Scott's 16/8 20:53 +0000 post for
> explanation. I can repost it if it is not in the/your archives.)
You may be right, but I'm relying on the following from LILA:
"The Metaphysics of Quality not only passes the logical positivists'
tests for meaningfulness, it passes them with the highest marks. The
Metaphysics of Quality restates the empirical basis of logical positivism
with more precision, more inclusiveness, more explanatory power than it
has previously had. It says that values are not outside of the experience
that logical positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this
experience. Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or
objects." (5)
No need for a "logic of contradictory identity."
> A society that sticks to existing criteria for distinguishing facts from
> fictions and truths from falsehoods ('objective' from 'subjective') tries
> (vainly) to insulate itself from DQ. As long as a society is open to
> discussion about the best way of applying these criteria, about the
> necessity of adapting them to changing circumstances (to new ways of
> discovering 'facts' and 'truths') and about what constitutes 'fact' and
> 'truth' in the experience of all involved, it is firmly latched on the
> intellectual level (but unable to jump to a next higher level of static
> quality that requires 'transcending and including' intellectual quality).
> To the extent that a society closes discussion about these criteria, it
> degenerates to social level, 'habitual' application of these criteria that
> prevents adaptation to changing circumstances and dooms itself to lagging
> behind in social progress. Islamic societies are a case in point (i.e.
> societies defining themselves as such, not societies in which people adhere
> to the islam but are open to including other elements in their collective
> identity). So called 'modern' societies founded in scientism (closing
> discussing about 'science' as preferred method for distinguishing facts
> from fictions and truths from falsehoods) are another case in point.
Recall that Pirsig set criteria for truth in Chapter 8:
"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience,
and economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies
these." (8)
So I don't think that one is precluded from "transcending to the next
higher level" (whatever that may be) by sticking to these criteria. At
least there's no suggestion from Pirsig to that effect that I know of.
Islamic societies haven't evolved to the intellectual level and thus have
closed all discussion of truth criteria as you rightly point out. Modern
societies depending on scientific criteria for establishing truth (logical
positivism) are within the MOQ paradigm (as shown in the quote from
Chap. 5) and are unlike Islam in that they are more open to changing
their notions of truth when presented with new evidence. Pirsig praises
science for its "eraser," its standard of provisional truth. (Science has
other problems, but that's another story.)
> [A sidenote:
> I hesitate about 'societies' latching on the intellectual level. Any
> society that seeks self-preservation risks degeneration to the social
> level, because staying to itself and separating itself from other societies
> requires closing the discussion about 'who belongs'. E.g. a society founded
> on criteria for kinship runs into identity problems and internal and
> external strife when increasing mobility of people distorts traditional
> ways of recognizing kinship ties. Take for example the German nation until
> at least 1945 and still to some extent. It 'ran into' in attempts to
> exterminate nationless Jews ('accidentally' another group strongly founding
> its identity in kinship) and more recently risked and risks internal strife
> by welcoming immigration of citizens from the disintegrating Soviet-Union
> with German ancestry (but with no cultural ressemblances left) and
> hampering integration of its citizens of Turkish descent. I leave it to
> Americans to find out for themselves under what circumstances a society
> founded on identification with symbols ('stars and stripes') and uncritical
> acceptance of quotes from historic texts runs into problems.]
I've read about concerns among native Hollanders that the uncontrolled
immigration of Muslims and their higher birth rates threaten to overrun
the country with a Muslim majority in a generation or two. Is this true?
Is this desirable from your viewpoint?
> Reversion to ad hominem attacks results from inability (or laziness) to
> openly discuss criteria for 'facts' and 'truths', not from 'transcending
> and including' them in a MoQish, post-modern, ironic, pragmatist etc.
> vocabulary.
> Uncritical 'solidarity' with one's 'own group' (the labor
> class, MoQadherents whatever) indeed leads to 'mindless' struggles for
> power (social level competition). As long as it is possible to discuss
> openly whom we should show solidarity with, to what extent and until what
> circumstances have changed, appealing to solidarity is a healthy and
> necessary counterbalance against class/national/ethnic/whatever selfishess.
Appears you may be showing solidarity with Matt, Rorty and the
postmodernists. (-: I don't think you can drag the MOQ into an anti-
rational, anti-logical, anti-Aristotelian program where "vocabulary"
substitutes for reason, correspondence with reality, and economy of
explanation.
You last line baffles me because class, nationalism, and ethnicity are
prime examples of appeals to "selfish" solidarity. For me, individual
liberty supersede all calls for any sort of collective solidarity, except
when the nation that guarantees individual liberty is physically
threatened by terrorists.
Platt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:33 BST