From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 21:48:53 GMT
Platt:
The types of quotes I'm think of are like these:
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things
being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level
of evolution, is more moral." (Ch 13, beginning)
"All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic
Quality." (Ch. 11)
They're littered everywhere when Pirsig talks about the morality, like the
choice of the Hippies (Ch. 24) and insanity/mysticism (Ch. 30).
Platt said:
The results from DQ cannot be predicted. But, if you deny the existence
of DQ, you might as well toss the MoQ into the intellectual trash heap.
Matt:
That's fine, because, naturally, I don't deny the existence of DQ. Dynamic
Quality is a metaphor. As a metaphor, it is unintelligible. As soon as it
becomes intelligible, it becomes a dead metaphor, which is the same thing
as a literal word a.k.a. a static pattern. Metaphors are what expand our
knowledge, they are what expand our logical space so that we can think of
other races and women as being equal to the white race and men. In the old
static patterns, it was logically impossible for women to be equal to men.
To say that they were was unintelligible, by definition false. To insist
that they were was a metaphor. It wasn't until we expanded to logical
space to make that equalization intelligible that the metaphor died and
became easy to logically understand.
DQ as metaphor, however, is much more than a metaphor. It is the
compliment made to other metaphors when they succeed in expanding logical
space to make things better. Dynamic Quality is the ultimate compliment.
So, when you say, "The results from DQ cannot be predicted," I would think
it better to say, "The results of metaphors cannot be predicted." That's
why we can't call them DQ until much later.
As for "cruelty," you said:
Like so many words in the liberal lexicon, "cruelty" is another ingredient
in Pirsig's "soup of sentiments" that you're "supposed to cheer for, like
"justice" and "compassion." Is abortion cruel? Is encouraging bastardy
cruel? Is moral ruthlessness cruel? Consider the following:
"Intellectuals must find biological behavior no matter what its ethnic
connection and limit or destroy biological patterns with complete moral
ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys germs . . ." (24)
What about the value in certain circumstances of Hamlet's insistence, "I
must be cruel, only to be kind."? Apparently Pirsig would agree--hardly
a contemporary liberal attitude. Like words in all slogans, "cruel" needs
elaboration to have intellectual meaning.
Matt:
Well, I tend to agree that "cruelty" is part of that "soup of sentiments."
However, I think that soup of sentiments is absolutely necessary for moral
progress. I don't follow Pirsig in thinking that we need to make our
morals "rational" in the old meaning of rational. In my reading of Pirsig,
it seems Pirsig is looking for the perfect, knock-down argument against the
Nazi's on why they should be considered the 20th Century's example of
Ultimate Evil. Well, I don't know how that argument would work against an
actual Nazi. It may work against people like us, but then, we already
agree with you. The problem is that Nazis don't share enough of our
beliefs, enough _premises_, for a logical argument to work. We show them
Pirsig's argument and they go, "Vell, dat's okay vit us, because ve tink
dat de Aryan race is de most Dynamic." And that's if they buy into enough
of the terminology. If they don't, it makes the argument even less persuasive.
So all we have left is that sloppy "soup of sentiments" with which to
converse about. We attempt to show the Nazi some of the inhumanity that he
is causing in the hopes that it touches his heart strings. That's the only
way to reach a convinced, and philosophically adept, Nazi.
So, sure, "cruelty" needs to be more elaborated to have a more plausible
intellectual meaning, some meaning as a word in the premise in an argument.
But my use of "cruelty" wasn't meant to be used in a logical argument, it
was meant to pull at your heart strings.
Matt
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 21:43:40 GMT