From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 26 2005 - 11:48:27 GMT
Hi all,
This is a spin off from the punk discussions, with nods to Ant's recent
question to me about the "need" for theism when we each have access to
Quality, and also touches on my ongoing conversation with Wim (which I will
reply to in a week or so, after the customary post-festival break for
hireling ministers ;-).
Some things are better than others. Which means that, in the music
conversation for example, some music IS degenerate etc, whilst other music
will uplift the soul (or substitute your own expression for generating high
Quality).
The question is: can the perception of this betterness be taught? That is,
can a person's perception of Quality be enhanced and drawn out? Is
_education_ possible?
((It seems to me that there is an assumption still bedevilling some of our
conversations here, not least that between Arlo and Platt. The assumption
that seems to be bedevilling the music conversation (leaving aside some of
the more egregious problems) is that the perception of Quality resides
either in the subject (personal taste) or in the objective (the standards of
appreciation). Now I believe we are all familiar with a remarkable book
which unpicks the needs for that division between subjective and objective,
so not much more need be said there.))
But there remains this question about teaching Quality. Because the
_rhetoric_ that Pirsig uses tends to drift towards the subjective side. For
example: "And what is Good, Phaedrus, and what is not Good - need we ask
anyone to tell us these things?"
In a world where we are still dominated by SOM conceptions that sort of
rhetoric supports relativism. No one person's taste is of greater merit than
anothers. I don't believe that this is what Pirsig supports (at all) but it
is a tendency supported by some of his rhetoric - a rhetoric which is deeply
rooted in cultures deriving from the Protestant Reformation. Luther: Here I
stand, I can do no other. The individual becomes the arbiter of truth. And
it ties in with a relative privileging of DQ over SQ. Which at the highest
levels is perfectly appropriate. Luther was a genius and a great saint. But
we are not all Luther. Or Pirsig. Or even, I suspect, Homer Simpson ("I
can't believe it! Reading and writing actually paid off!")
My elder son will soon be three, and we are hitting problems with his diet.
All he wants is cereal. It tastes good to him, and something like fish pie
(which was on last night's menu) doesn't have the same appeal. There are
reasons for this. In our biological past high energy foods were
comparatively rare, and we have developed a 'sweet tooth', to favour sweet
foods when they are available. But allowing that biological desire a free
rein causes low Quality in the long run, because they lack important
elements of nutrition. So the Quality decision is to encourage the child to
eat higher quality food, _even though it is not his preference_ for the
simple reason that it will allow him a greater degree of flourishing over
the long haul.
The long haul. Deferring gratification. In other words, choosing an option
of immediately lower quality (an apple, rather than chocolate) because in
the long run it leads to a higher quality outcome. In other words, the
capacity for mature and considered judgement: phronesis. Is this _judgement_
what Pirsig is referring to when he talks about not needing anyone else to
teach us the good?
Could my elder son - in a dazzling display of genius - quote Pirsig to me
over the dinner table and say 'Daddy, what is nutritious, and what is not
nutritious - I don't need you to tell me these things'?
What we have are settled static patterns, eg what we know about nutrition,
and in order for the child's judgement to be truly of Quality, and not
simply of short-run biological gratification (ie immediate biological static
quality at the expense of long run biological/social/intellectual quality)
that judgement needs to be informed. Where judgement is not so informed then
degeneracy is not so far away.
But who is the arbiter of what counts as good judgement?
(Oh no! The Inquisition looms ominously in the background. The Cardinal
fondles his branding iron with relish.)
Arbiters on their own are OBJECTIVE.
Our taste on its own is SUBJECTIVE.
"Why even have a:
{notion of a theistic God or even established religions}
or
{notion of a canon of classical literature, from Austen to Zola}
or
{notion of good music, whether it be orchestral or just the Man in Black}
or
{notion of 'great art'}
or
{fill in your own example}
when we already have a "special relation to Quality that no one [else] can
override"?
To which Sam says: mu.
Sam
"If you have a high opinion of yourself then your ability to recognise new
facts is weakened." (RMP, ZMM ch 26)
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 - 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 : Sat Mar 26 2005 - 11:51:54 GMT