From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 21:48:23 BST
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your detailed answers.
> Steve asked in series:
> Do you think that there is anywhere to get to? Do you think there are
> higher and lower levels of awareness? Higher and lower levels of cognitive
> ability? Higher and lower stages of moral development? Etc?
>
> Matt:
> Anywhere? No, I wouldn't put it like that, but I do think that we have a lot
> of room for moral improvement and growth. And I wouldn't say that the type of
> improvement I think possible would let us reach a "higher level of awareness."
> I wouldn't, personally, prefer to use that terminology, but there are
> formulations of moral improvement that would make reference to higher levels
> of awareness.
Steve:
Is the improvement you're talking about merely your perspective of what
would be better or something real? I'm wondering how you can talk about
growth and deny hierarchies. (When I use the word "hierarchies" I'm using
it in Wilber's sense of "holarchy" where the higher level includes the lower
level in a series of nests.)
>For instance, becoming more aware of the forms of cruelty
> around us. But I think this is a fairly bland use of awareness as compared to
> the way it is used in mysticism and other related philosophies. And as for
> cognitive ability, outside of physiology (which I'm sure will bring all the
> usual round of epithets of "materialistic nihilist"), I don't think there are
> "higher" levels of cognition, as in some kind of transcendence. Those things
> just don't make sense to me.
Studying some developmental psychology might help you make sense of growth
in levels of cognition and awareness. Or studying evolution from
single-celled organisms to humans. I'd call that transcendence.
You sometimes talk about cruelty and it seems strange coming from you. I
know you wouldn't use it as an absolute, so what do you mean by it? Do you
see progress as fleeing an absolute wrong while rejecting moving toward an
absolute good? Is progress in anyway distinguished from changing tastes in
your philosophy?
>
> Steve said:
> Do you personally find any use for the idea of transcendence? I think what
> makes me cringe is the sense that you don't see any perspective as better or
> worse than any other. It's the apparent lack of possibility of ascent in
> your philosophy that bothers me. I'm sure you'd say that this is not your
> view, but it's hard for me not to read you that way. I'm not sure where
> the block is in my understanding. You say that you don't say that but in
> your explanations I read you saying it again.
>
> Matt:
> Transcendence? No. I'm not in favor of making discrete, metaphysical cuts
> between different "kinds." That's what I think is needed to use transcendence
> in a non-vegetarian sense.
>
> I'm not sure where you read me as being an "arbitrary relativist" either.
> Point out some specific pieces and I might be able to clarify. As a lead in,
> one reason pragmatists look like arbitrary relativists is because they refuse
> to play metaphysics, they refuse to make the cut between discrete kinds, like
> everyone from Plato to Pirsig does. But just because we refuse to do that
> doesn't mean we can't choose between Pepsi and Coke. That's why I think the
> idea of an arbitrary relativist is incoherent, or a strawman. In practice,
> nobody is and the only place that the relativist is important is in practice.
Steve:
When you use deciding between a Pepsi and a Coke as an example to disprove
your arbitrary relativism you prove the point. Moral decisions seem to be
just a matter of taste to you. Some people like chocolate, others like to
sacrifice virgins to the volcano god.
> Steve said:
> Some people are stuck in an egocentric understanding of the world while
> others have reached a higher ethnocentric understanding. Still others like
> you are able to see that what their own culture says is right and wrong is
> not absolute. They have a world-centric view. Is none of these
> perspectives better than any other? I see these as stages of development.
> (The higher level includes the lower.)
> Matt:
> I don't think any of viewpoints are absolutely better than the others, no. I
> think of it more pragmatically than that. It's great to try and take on a
> perspective that includes all the cruelty done in the world, but sometimes its
> not practically possible to take on all of the world's problems. Sometimes we
> have to deal with our own. If we are always pining about the Third World's
> problems, then its possible we'll forget about our family's problems.
Steve:
I agree that "sometimes we have to deal with our own [problems]," but I see
no contradictory hierarchies at work that would rule out thinking of
consciousness expansion as growth. Being aware of others problems includes
being aware of your own.
(To say it is sometimes better not to know about the larger world is to
choose a lower level of awareness over a higher one, which to me seems to be
a mild form of suicide. (I wouldn't choose to stay in the Matrix for this
reason.))
It seems strange that I should have to try to convince you that your
perspective is better than many others.
>
> Steve asked:
> Do you think about what is good? How do you make decisions?
>
> Matt:
> I do think about what is good. But here's the different between me and Plato
> and Pirsig at his worst. When I think about what is good, I'm thinking about
> things that have the adjective good attached to them. What Plato thought was
> that by meditating on the Good, as a thing-in-itself, we would be able to be
> more moral. That's what led to metaphysics. The pragmatist tradition throws
> that project away. I think Pirsig thinks roughly the same thing, that by
> meditating on Quality, we will become better quality people. That's how I
> read the end of Lila, when he says that "Good is a noun." As I see it, that's
> a Platonic mistake.
>
> And I make decisions just like everybody else. I think about options,
> alternatives, consequences, possible outcomes, etc. and I weigh and reason my
> way through them. But I don't think there's anything metaphysical about it.
To say there is nothing metaphysical about it is a metaphysical claim. I
assume your were just not being careful in your wording and haven't revealed
an inconsistency. You really mean that you've decided not to talk about it
in metaphysical terms because your study of philosophy has shown that it
hasn't gotten anyone anywhere, right?
Has postmodernism gotten you anywhere? You've said before that pragmatists
feel that we should stop talking about metaphysics to further the
conversation. On the contrary, it's seemed like a conversation stopper to
me. You keep having to say that you pragmatist types don't like to talk
about it.
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 : Mon May 19 2003 - 21:46:28 BST