Hi Struan, Cory and all,
STRUAN
>Whilst [Jonathan] is right that one of my objections to SOM is that
>the M is misplaced - of that I am as
>certain as I am about anything - I don't see why Jonathan attempts to
>dispose of the argument as
>semantic and not substantive. I always considered semantics to be
highly
>substantive. In fact the
>word 'substantive' itself is a very interesting choice in this context
>don't you think? Perhaps I
>could invite Jonathan to clarify just what the objection is.
I don't really have an "objection". My understanding of Pirsig is that
he objects to the way the dialectic (SO-thought) has become the
"exclusive" measure of reality (to the exclusion of ethics). Pirsig
calls
this SO Metaphysics. It is my understanding that Struan goes along with
the sentiment, but objects to calling it a metaphysics.
It doesn't really bother me either way - perhaps I missed the point.
I invite Struan to clarify.
CORY
> Struan and Jonathan
>
> You are both suggesting that we use conventional morality to explain
Robert
> Pirsig's MoQ. In his metaphysics there is only one perceived evil,
exclusive
> stasis. Good and bad are concepts arising from one conventional moral
code
> but we take them to mean everything and would continue to do so if we
put
> those concepts back into the MoQ.
And what other morality is there? I was quite sickened a few months ago
to see someone trying
to claim that the MoQ *supports* the perverted views of neo-Nazi William
Pierce. Pirsig hasn't invented any new system of morality. IMO he is
telling us that our gut-instincts/intuitions etc. are just as real as
molecules. MAN IS THE MEASURE.
That "conventional morality" is our common morality, that tells us it is
wrong to kick babies, rape our daughters etc. No-one derives this
ethical sense from studying metaphysics. Common morality is constantly
evolving, constantly tested and often fallible, but without it, you have
no society and no intellect.
I could go on, but Struan (alias Theo Schramm), myself and others
already posted extensively on this way back during the "Morality"
discussion (see archives).
CORY
> Good is implied in ideas. When we first have an idea we have no clue
if it
> is a good idea or a bad idea. Only in retrospection is that idea
determined
> as good or bad. That is intellectualizing.
You dismiss the tremendous importance of prejudice - by that I mean
prejudgement rather than bigotry.
Those cute innocent pearls of wisdom we often hear from our children are
"cute" (i.e. good) before we "intellectualize" the wisdom. Here you
have Pirsig's old classic/romantic understanding of Quality. Cuteness is
Romantic - wisdom is Classic.
There's also a dynamic vs. static aspect to it if you prefer.
CORY
> Good and bad are conventional frames of references.
And so? So are words. So are myths. So are theories.
> >JONATHAN:
> > [Subject-Object] thought is GOOD for fixing motorcycles ...[snip.]
STRUAN
>Agreed. But does anyone actually fix motorcycles without emotion, or
heal
>the sick without ethics,
>or design and build a damn without intuition? Of course not! This is a
>message that is, on the
>surface, quite profound, but deep down it is very superficial.
I agree with Struan that humans are not robots - we do EVEYTHING with
emotion, whether we admit or not.
You can hardly build a good DAM if you don't give a DAMN :-)
As for the "cute" line about deep-down superficiality, cute but
rubbish. It's so profound that IMO Pirsig took it as the starting point
for his two-novel journey.
CORY
> As I understand it, Pirsig tells us in his various writings that he
> considers subject/object thought as deterministically separating our
bodies
> from the rest of our environment. From this subjective base one is
able to
> objectify all objects. Call them good and bad. Which, as I said, you
both
> seem to be suggesting that we do in our mutual attempts at furthering
our
> understanding of the MoQ.
>
> I disagree. And I am surprised at you both. This is indeed very
superficial.
> I've come to expect more from you.
If this is what Cory thinks we are saying, it is indeed superficial.
However, it certainly isn't what *I* intended to say, and not what I
understand to be Struan's view either.
Please try reading the thread again. If I've been anything less than
crystal clear (quite possible, I'm afraid),
I'll be glad o try again ...
Be good everyone,
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST