Dear Platt,
You wrote 17/9 16:08 -0400 that the MoQ needs no 'logic of contradictory
identity' (to grasp its foundation, the distinction of Quality/experience in
static and Dynamic) because -according to Pirsig- it 'passes the logical
positivists' tests for meaningfulness'.
The passage from 'Lila' you quoted doesn't explicitly claim the MoQ to be
fully rational and the supposed agreement of logical positivism and MoQ
doesn't implicitly make the MoQ fully rational either.
I never really studied logical positivism. I have a feeling however that
Pirsig slightly overstated his case. Some logical positivists may go along
with experience = value/Quality/Reality and with distinguishing different
types of value/Quality/Reality (inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual) if properly defined. I am not so sure however that they will
also go along with static/Dynamic as first and fundamental cut of Reality
and with Pirsig's inference of moral evolution (things getting better on the
whole).
My implicit point was that 'rational - irrational' can't be squarely
translated into 'good - bad' as you seem to do. There is a 'pre/trans'
distinction to be made here too.
Intellectual moral evolution may start from prerational (magical and
mythical) modes of thinking. These are transcended and included in rational
modes of thinking, which may themselves be transcended and included in
post-rational modes of thinking.
Rationally we can see a (limited) value in magic and myths: they help
primitive people to organize themselves amid the law of the jungle at the
social level (families/clans/societies internally cooperating and externally
competing for power and the natural resources needed for collective
survival). A rational mode of thinking can arise when people experience that
collective survival can also (partly) be guaranteed by 'producing' economic
value (rather than just 'consuming' scarce natural resources).
>From a post-rational point of view we can see a (limited) value in the
individualism that arises with rational thinking and making society more
productive: individual freedom to experiment and to reap a disproportional
part from the collective positive results helps identifying the most
productive ways of organizing things. A post-rational mode of thinking can
arise when people experience that individual and collective survival is not
(always) at stake any more and to the extent that there is leisure to
satisfy
other than economic values.
I understand both the MoQ and Rorty's-ideas-as-interpreted-by-Matt K. as
attempts to transcend and include rational thinking.
"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and
economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these."
(According to Pirsig in 'Lila' chapter 8)
I agree, with the caveat that the division of Quality in sq and DQ may not
be 'understandable' to everyone without recourse to either paradoxes and
metaphors or 'logic of contradictory identity' (without that it may seem
'logically inconsistent' to state that some phenomenon -e.g. science- is
both static and Dynamic). The MoQ is a high quality intellectual pattern of
values and 'truth' is a measure of intellectual quality.
These 'tests of truth' are the rules of the game of 'identifying
truth/Reality/objectivity' that constitutes most of the intellectual level.
(This is very close to your SOLAQI-idea, Bo, except for the 'most' and
except for the implication that the MoQ is part of the intellectual level
because it satisfies these criteria.)
I still maintain however that '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'.
NOT because it sticks to THESE criteria for identifying truth, but because
it sticks to criteria for IDENTIFYING TRUTH and doesn't recognize that there
may be higher levels of static quality to jump for (that transcend but also
include intellectual quality).
You wrote:
'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?'
You are mixing up things a bit I think:
1) A majority of Dutch voters are concerned about the volume of immigration
and have voted a new coalition government into power that is going to
restrict immigration even further. Immigration is far from 'uncontrolled'.
Reasons given are (hesitantly, because they long were perceived as
politically incorrect) mainly related to security (among immigrants are more
criminals) and economics (e.g. immigrants are profiting more from 'our'
social security system than they contribute to our economy).
2) Most Dutch know better than to associate negative effects of immigration
exclusively or chiefly with the Islamic religion or culture. If the
immigrants causing problems are distinguished by descent, those from the
Caribbean (Netherlands Antilles) are heading the list even if those from
Morocco (especially those born in the Netherlands ..., not the first
generation immigrants) are a good second.
3) The idea that the Netherlands could be 'overrun' by those of foreign
descent because of higher birth rates figures only in drivel and in racist
'literature'. These do exist in the Netherlands of course, but aren't likely
to influence the behavior of a lot of people.
4) If I am well-informed, the birth rates (and other cultural
characteristics) of those of foreign descent converge with those of 'pure'
Dutch descent within a few generations. The Netherlands has a long history
of integration of immigrants, which is often recalled publicly, and a
tradition of tolerance of cultural differences, which we are publicly proud
of (even when we don't always stick to it). Integration of immigrants is
never achieved without stresses of course and a higher volume of immigrants
creates more stresses. In the present political climate the problems are voi
ced more than they were a few years ago. The voices expressing the desirable
effects of being a multicultural society and its inevitability in the
context of economical globalization are far from subdued however and I
expect the political pendulum to swing back in due course.
I suspect that it is no accident that your questions about the Dutch follow
this quote from me:
'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". ... 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.'
Could you make explicit which problems (if any) you have with this quote?
You wrote:
'Appears you may be showing solidarity with Matt, Rorty and the
postmodernists.'
I wouldn't use the term 'solidarity' for my selective approval without any
engagement.
It seems a little bit far-fetched to me that I would 'drag the MOQ into an
anti-rational, anti-logical, anti-Aristotelian program where "vocabulary"
substitutes for reason, correspondence with reality, and economy of
explanation'. If you are serious, please explain.
My esteem for rationality, conventional logic, reason, empiricism and
explaining things as simply as possible is very high. (I know hardly
anything about Aristotle.) Post-rationality, 'logic of contradictory
identity' and conclusions/decisions that 'feel' or are intuitively known to
be 'good' but that nevertheless can't be 'reasoned' and experimentally
proved to be so are for me only exceptions to the rules that found sanity
and communication. My experience that these exceptions form higher quality
patterns only dimly grasped doesn't alter that fact of my esteem (as
expressed for instance in my style of writing).
I wrote 17/9 9:43 +0200:
'appealing to solidarity is a healthy and necessary counterbalance against
class/national/ethnic/whatever selfishess'
You replied 17/9 16:08 -0400:
'class, nationalism, and ethnicity are prime examples of appeals to
"selfish" solidarity'.
In Dutch 'solidarity' has the distinct flavor of 'unselfishness'. Some types
of unselfishness are of course still relatively selfish from an even more
'unselfish' point of view. Appeals to class, national and ethnic
consciousness are indeed 'selfish' from my humanitarian or even holistic
point of view.
Solidarity is from my point of view an individual choice and not
inconsistent with individual liberty. 'Enforced solidarity' needs no
'appeals'. 'Collective solidarity' should be no more than the aggregate of
individual choices and as such I see no harm in it.
I hope your 'snipping' of the first part of my 17/9 9:43 +0200 post implies
agreement that a 'suggestion that we should go "beyond" rationality' is not
necessarily dangerous. If not, I don't really know how to interpret your
'You may be right'.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:06:34 BST