From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 18:23:17 GMT
Hey DMB,
> RICK
> I believe that when James speaks of the "cash-value" of a word, he is
> referring to this "practical difference" that follows from holding a given
> position. Of Pirsig, James would likely ask something like, "What is the
> cash-value of the word 'Quality'?" or in other words "What do I gain from
> believing in 'Quality'? If Pirsig couldn't point to some practical gains
> that flow from a belief in 'Quality', James would probably lose interest.
>
> DMB says:
> Excellent. Thank you. That's about what I thought. The "cash-value" part
is
> just a way to emphasize practicality. BUT don't you think the MOQ has
> practical vaule? I've used it to win money betting on the outcome of
current
> events and such. I've used it to literally garner cash. No kidding. I
think
> it works. I think its a very handy tool.
RICK
My original point was only that I'm not convinced by Pirsig's claim that
the MoQ is an *extension* of pragmatism. Whether the MoQ itself
has pragmatic value is another issue entirely.
DMB
This idea that
> the sole test of an assertion is "practicality" is kind of superficial and
> even tastes a little like nihilism. It seems kind of heartless and maybe
> even evil. I mean, didn't the NAZIs find great practical value in the
final
> solution? Pragmatism seems to evade and ignore the issues and aspects of
> life that strike me as the most important things. I mean, "practically"
> speaking, music, art and fun have no value, yet people spend a great deal
of
> time and money in pursuit of their enjoyment.
RICK
Before I address these points, I want to remind you once again that my
original point was not to defend the system of pragmatism, but only to
express doubt about Pirsig's claim that the MoQ is an extension of
pragmatism.
Now, the problem with your thoughts above is that nobody has ever
asserted that "the sole test of an assertion is practicality" (at least, I
never said it, and as far as I know, W.J. never said it). What James wrote
was, "The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical
disputes that otherwise might be interminable." As 'music', 'art' and 'fun'
aren't "metaphysical disputes that otherwise might seem interminable,'
applying the method of pragmatism to them would be like "trying to grasp
poerty[sic] in terms of physics" (to borrow a phrase).
As for your point about the Nazis....
WILLIAM JAMES (from 'Pragmatism', 1907, chap.2)
[Pragmatism] does not stand for any special results. It is a method only.
RICK
Pragmatism is method. Just like the scientific method. And I have no
doubt that Hitler could have twisted pragmatism to support his views in
precisely the same way he twisted science to support his views (haven't you
ever seen those diagrams purporting to scientifically show why Aryans were a
master race?). But so what? That Hitler could exploit pragmatism for his
own purposes doesn't negate pragmatism anymore than the fact that Hitler
could exploit science for his own purposes would negate science.
I don't know of any philosophical system or method that can't be somehow
exploited or twisted into supporting positions it never intended to,
including the MoQ. Surely Hitler, after reading LILA, would characterize
himself as a doctor, Germany as a patient and the Jews as germs. Such wild
and tenuous interpretations of ideas are always possible. But a good
critical-thinker would be able to refute Hitler's claim to support from
science, and his hypothetical claim to support from pragmatism, as quickly
as he could refute a claim that the MoQ supports the Nazis.
take care
rick
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 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 18:23:50 GMT