From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 21:33:02 BST
Matt,
> Platt would love for me to say that I have no use for hierarchies, because
> that would cinch my inability to rate things as being better or worse than
> others. But of course I won't say this because its simply not true.
>
> Structures aren't the same as hierarchies in the sense used by the French.
> Structuralism says that there are deep, inherent, essential, universal,
> ahistorical structures in humans (or anything else for that matter).
> Levi-Strauss and Lacan both claimed to have found a deep psychic structure for
> which all humans have. This puts them right into the Cartesian camp for
> Descartes also said that all humans have a psychic unity.
What is a psychic unity?
>I see Pirsig
> claiming the same thing at times, that he's found the deep structure for which
> everything falls. The key words are "at times," because I know the
> post-structuralist, pragmatic passages as well as anyone. Its the other ones
> I'm concerned that people are latching onto, saying essentialist things and
> then pleading "not guilty" by pointing to the post-structuralist passages. I
> see that as being inconsistent.
>
> So, no post-structuralists don't have to reject hierarchies. A good example
> is Rorty, who quite plainly prefers liberals to conservatives.
But this is just his subjective opinion?
>And my problem
> with the MoQ is not that it erects an illegitimate hierarchy (though we could
> go around all day as to what would count as being "illegitimate"), its that I
> think Pirsig, at times, makes the MoQ seem like an hypostatized, ahistorical
> hierarchy, which would make it a deep structure. Pirsig's at his best when
> he's tearing down ahistorical hierarchies; he's at his worst when he's
> erecting his own. I wish Pirsig would just leave us with the historical
> hierarchies.
So, you don't like ahistorical hierarchies, but you like historical ones.
Can you explain the difference? Give examples? (Or clue me in if I use the
words incorrectly.)
> I simply wanted to slide in and say that I think the idea of a "pre/trans
> fallacy" is bunk because it begs the question. As far as I can see, the only
> way to call somebody on this fallacy is to already have in mind the "correct"
> way to differentiate pre- from trans-.
But I do. A higher level includes and transcends a lower level. I higher
level performs all the functions of a lower level and more. If the word
"higher" is offensive, choose a different word. The distinction I'm
(Wilber, really is) making is that transrationality includes rationality
(and thus can forward mathematics) while prerationality (babies) can't.
>I think a better way to
> describe rationality is as evolving with whatever community we are referring
> to. What was rational for the Greeks is different than what was rational for
> the 18th century French. Socrates and Solon would've had a fit if they heard
> the French liberals talking about private rights and independence. It
> would've sounded irrational. However, to pre-empt everyone who's about to
> call me a relativist, this is not to say that we can't say, now in the 21st
> century, that our conception of rationality is better than theirs. Or,
> rather, its a better fit for our context and we wouldn't trade our context for
> the ones in the past, though we'll surely trade our context for the hopeful
> ones in the future.
By rationality, I have been meaning logic. Your example makes sense to me
if I think of rationality as what is considered good rationale which may or
may not be good logic and may or may not transcend logic.
My point was that Pirsig with his "ghost of reason" was not out to prove
that logic is bunk and any rationale is just as good as any other. On the
contrary, he was proposing that though logic is better than irrationality,
logic is not the end. Quality, for example, includes and transcends logic.
Is there a good reason why I should take the position that there are no
ahistorical hierarchies? Wouldn't such a reason imply that there is one?
Isn't being able to take the perspectives of others (understanding different
contexts) better than only being able to see things from your own? Another
ahistorical hierarchy? Being able to take the perspective of others
includes and transcends your own. No?
You can go ahead and say that I'm begging the question now, but please
explain how, otherwise I won't know what you mean.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Wed May 14 2003 - 21:34:32 BST