From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 17:51:43 BST
Hi Matt,
> Steve said:
> Again with the anti-Quality of cruelty. It sounds like you think by
> meditating on cruelty we can work towards perfecting ourselves, which is the
> other side of the coin of what you criticized about Plato previously.
>
> Matt:
> No, I don't think meditating on cruelty will help us work towards alleviating
> it. You're right, that would be Platonic. What I think needs meditating upon
> are specific instances of cruelty, meditation upon the phenomena of reality to
> determine where and when cruelty occurs and to whom. That's why literature
> performs this function better than theory. Literature portrays specific
> phenomena, while theory generalizes. Literature can pull us into caring for
> the phenomena it portrays, while theory can tend to extrapolate to abstraction
> which can leave it cold.
Steve:
Your idea of using literature resonates well with me. I can see how art
could contribute to development beyond rationality as it expresses truth
that is beyond rational deductions and inductions.
As you've said before in your 3/16 post on Pirsig and Postmodernism, you
can't use reason to explain why someone is not being reasonable.
Ultimately, all awareness is of an aesthetic nature, and it is only this
kind of appreciation that will lift the new born from a complete lack of
self awareness to the sensorimotor level and so on to the rational level of
cognition and beyond.
The criticisms of reason you gave in your 3/16 post are profound and could
only come from someone who has developed cognitively beyond a merely
rational level. You are aware of patterns that others are incapable of
seeing. Yet, it seems you then want to deny development as being real.
You've climbed to a high level and then deny the existence of the ladder.
(It's the flip side to the wealthy conservative who was born on third base
and thinks he hit a triple.)
> Steve said:
> I prefer Pirsig's positive goal of Quality instead of negative goals of
> freedom from oppression and cruelty. This may be a matter of taste (in the
> sense of a moral decision, as all decisions are, for which inter-subjective
> agreement does not seem so important.)
>
> Matt:
> I actually don't see a difference between the two formulations. I'm not sure
> what the positive goal of Quality is outside of being a higher Quality person,
> which, I assume, would include something like caring for other people and
> wanting to stop the cruelty being done to them.
Steve:
I don't think I could distinguish them without making what you would call an
appearance/reality distinction which you would immediately write-off as
wrong-headed. (I would say something like cruelty (anti-Quality) isn't
substantial. It is only the shadow of Quality as darkness isn't
substantial. It is just a term for the absence of light. Fleeing darkness
is directionless. It is not the same as seeking the light.)
Again, I appreciate the time you've taken to write such well thought out
answers to my questions. I think I have a better understanding of your
philosophy and it has helped me development my mine.
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 21 2003 - 17:50:25 BST