From: MarshaV (marshalz@i-2000.com)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 21:20:27 BST
Hi Platt,
My perspective is different. I don't see Pirsig praising social equality
in the first paragraph. I interpret the remark "... no mere doctrine, who
had equality built into his bones." to be a statement about Ten Bears, not
himself. Other comments in that paragraph seem to be observations rather
than judgements.
I don't see a contradiction.
MarshaV
At 12:39 PM 8/12/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>There appears to be a contradiction or at least a question regarding
>Pirsig's views on "social equality." At first, he praises the concept:
>
>"The idea that "all men are created equal" is a gift to the world from the
>American Indian. Europeans who settled here only transmitted it as a
>doctrine that they sometimes followed and sometimes did not. The real
>source was someone for whom social equality was no mere doctrine, who had
>equality built into his bones. To him it was inconceivable that the world
>could be any other way. For him there was no other way of life. That's
>what Ten Bears was trying to tell them.
>Phaedrus thought the Indians haven't yet lost this one. They haven't yet
>won it either, he realized; the fight isn't over. It's still the central
>internal conflict in America today. It's a fault line, a discontinuity
>that runs through the center of the American cultural personality. It's
>dominated American history from the beginning and continues to be a source
>of both national strength and weakness today." (Lila, 3)
>
>But later, he says the following:
>
>Cultures are not the source of all morals, only a limited set of morals.
>Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their contribution
>to the evolution of life. A culture that supports the dominance of social
>values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one
>that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual
>values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not. It
>is immoral to speak against a people because of the color of their skin,
>or any other genetic characteristic because these are not changeable and
>don't matter anyway. But it is not immoral to speak against a person
>because of his cultural characteristics if those cultural characteristics
>are-immoral. These are changeable and they do matter. (Lila, 24)
>
>On the one hand, he says social equality is a good thing. On the other, he
>says it's not a good thing to think that all societies are equal.
>
>Is this a flip-flop? If not, what's the difference?
>
>Thanks,
>Platt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries -
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
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 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 22:24:39 BST