From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 16:51:32 GMT
Hi Jonathan:
> So far, Matt has supported my "True is a noun" slogan (representing
> relativism and pragmatism), while Platt and Joe have championed the
> idealist campaign for the absolute ("Truth is a noun").
Did you mean in the first line to say "my 'True is an adjective' slogan"?
> I recognise that Platt and Joe's position is ethically motivated - to
> ensure that there can be no compromise between right and wrong. I think
> that their approach has its own problems, and leads to fundamentalism.
You seem to suggest that "fundamentalism" is on its face a bad thing.
Science, of course, follows its own brand of fundamentalism, defined as
widely held and solidly adhered to belief system. Question: Do you
consider the following quotes from Pirsig to represent "fundamentalism"
in a negative sense?
"But what's not so obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics
of Quality, it is absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the
patient." (13)
"We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual
freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it
represses biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely
morally good. These moral bads and goods are not just "customs."
They are as real as rocks and trees." (24)
"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." (24)
> As I see it, Pirsig debunks two different absolutist approaches:
>
> 1. Logical positivism - the position that everything is cause and effect,
> governed by fixed laws of nature.
Agree. In several places, Pirsig rejects absolute cause and effect in
favor of a value system whereby particles (for example) prefer to do what
they do following "a very consistent pattern of preferences." (8)
> 2. Mysticism - the position that empirical reality is an illusion, while
> the real absolute truth is waiting to be discovered by some process of
> "enlightenment".
Agree. Empirical reality, which is value, is no illusion in the MoQ. DQ,
which is Pirsig's term for the mystic Absolute, is no illusion either. Even
though it can't be defined it is understood.
> Both these positions are Platonic (idealist), and the most prominent
> philosophical argument in history is the conflict between them. It is the
> basis of the conflicts between Science, Art, Religion, etc.
>
> If we are to be true to the MoQ, we have to find an approach that dissolves
> the conflicts. The solution that works for me is to replace the word
> ABSOLUTE with GENERALITY. Thus - it is GENERALLY moral for the doctor to
> favour the patient over the germ.
IMO the MoQ dissolves the conflicts by encompassing them in the
embrace of absolute Quality. Both are forms of this absolute Quality,
the logical positivist side being represented by static Quality and the
mystic side by Dynamic Quality.
> Platt is not going to be completely comfortable with this, so I need to
> make it completely clear that I don't mean GENERALLY to be a weak word, but
> a strong and rigorous word. A Generality is to be taken as a law, subject
> to protection enforcement. It is not valid for a doctor to come along and
> casually reject the law. To reject the law, he must come and prove
> convincingly "I here have an exceptional circumstance because of x,y,z". I
> think this debunks the notion that I support some sort of wishy-washy
> "anything goes" morality.
I'm not convinced that your definition of "generally" avoids relativism,
also known as "situational ethics." Generally it was OK in Communist
Russia to murder dissidents.
> I find a lot of support for my suggestion:
> 1. In the critique on Franz Boas and his breed of anthropologists (ch. 4 of
> Lila), Pirsig states "If you can't generalize from data, there's nothing
> else you can do with it either." "A science without generalization is no
> science at all". IMHO, this extends to morality and ethics. The MoQ is a
> prime example - an attempt to provide a GENERAL framework for solving
> particular problems.
First, to "generalize from data" is to change the meaning of the word
from how you used it previously. Here it means to infer from facts.
Previously it meant to refer to a general principle. The meanings are not
interchangeable. Secondly, the MoQ provides a SPECIFIC framework
for solving particular problems. Because it is specific, Pirsig doesn't
hesitate to use "absolute" when the framework calls for it.
> 2. The rules and laws are all SQ patterns. As soon as one allows for DQ,
> their non-absolutism becomes clear. This is summed up (generalized) in the
> simple truism "To every rule there is an exception".
SQ patterns may not be absolute in the positivist sense, but allowing for
DQ is not the reason why. Static patterns "can't by themselves perceive
or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that." (13)
As for the rule, "To every rule there is an exception" the question arises,
"Is there an exception to that rule, too?" (My memory is dim, but it
seems we've been around this block before.)
Having said all this in defense of Pirsig's use of "absolute," I'm well
aware that he also treats "truth" as a personal, relative matter, like
"paintings in an art gallery." (13) Also, he praises science for it's
"provisional" stance, willing to change it's positions in the light of new
evidence. Frankly, it sometimes appears to me that Pirsig reverses the
normal roles, making scientific truths relative and moral truths
evolutionarily deterministic.
In any case, Jonathan, you have raised a profound issue: How to resolve
Pirsig's use of "absolute" in a moral context when history has witnessed
the horrors of some moral absolutists with political power in action. I
look forward to a further discussion of this key problem.
Platt
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 : Tue Jan 28 2003 - 16:55:31 GMT