From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 03:01:14 BST
Andy and all:
In response to the Pirsig quote about human rights...
Andy said:
Well, I do see here a contradiction between Rorty and Pirsig. Rorty
obviously doesn't believe there is a metaphysical basis for human rights.
But I will say that Pirsig is just plain wrong in the above quotation.
These "human
rights" are NOT essential to the evolution of a higher level of life. In
fact we have gotten where we are, through evolution, by nurturing a view of
individuals in groups outside of our own as something less than human.
dmb says:
Finally! Thank you. Yes, I think Rorty and Pirsig disagree about nearly
everything that's important to them both. (As far as I can glean, anyway.)
I'm not so sure that you actually disagree with Pirsig here. He's not saying
what you seem to think he's saying here. I think this is another case where
the distinction between social and intellectual values will clears it up.
Elsewhere Pirsig points out that it is the social level, the giant, that
doesn't mind losing a few bodies to protect itself. War and genocide and
bigotry did serve an evolutionary purpose for the social level, but for many
reasons the principles of the intellectual level are trying to put the
breaks on that sort of behaviour. Human rights are not a part of that level
of evolution, they are disigned to protect the freedom of intellect itself.
Its very nice that such a thing also has the added benefit of making
genocide illegal and such, but Pirsig's point is that human rights are
necessary for the intellect to continue its evolution.
Andy continued:
Society has advanced, evolved and grown by killing off ideas, humans, and
biological adversaries opposed to our evolutionary trajectory. Through all
of this the intellectual level has been growing and advancing. Evolution
has rewarded individuals who are aggressive and competitive when dealing
with unknown entities such as strangers in unknown groups. Evolution has
also rewarded individuals who react with violence over rational responses to
fear and the unknown. Evolution has also rewarded individuals who responded
to authority unquestioningly. All these traits have been passed down to us
through our evolutionary history.
dmb says:
I'd only point out that evolution proceeds with completely different rules,
depending on which level we're talking about. The things that work at the
biological level don't work at the social or intellectual levels. While the
whole thing is about betterness, I think the levels are in conflict about
what constitutes betterness. I mean, there are different KINDS of evolution.
Andy says:
We do not naturaly have a concept of "human rights" that is defined through
the evolution of a higher level of life. Rather we have to create this
definition in order to reach a higher level of life, because our old
views of human rights for insiders and a complete disrespect for all lives
outside of our groups will no longer be feasible in our increasingly smaller
global world.
dmb says:
Right. Human rights are not a feature of biology or society, but let's not
go so far as to say they are un-natural. As I understand it, human rights
are a product of evolution everybit as much as are lungs and eyeballs, but
at a level of reality that can't rightly be compared to such things. And I
think you're quite right about our shrinking world. We can no longer
afforded to be aggressive and bigoted tribalists. Such an approach is
obsolete. It has so outgrown its usefulness that it has now become a real
threat to survival. This is why the next level evolved, to solve a serios
problem that can never be solved at the social level.
Andy said:
From the Pirsig quote above, this would seem to me to be exactly what Pirsig
is saying. (That democracy and human rights have an eternally fixed
definition.)
dmb says:
No, I think its pretty clear that these things only makes sense in a
historical and evolutionary context. Nothing fixed or eternal about that. It
just keeps on going.
Andy:
I was talking about a word like democracy and freedom though. I don't want
to just give these words away to others and invent a new term for treating
people equally. I still hold these words sacred. It bugs the @*&# out of me
when I here what the American military is doing around the world in the name
of freedom and democracy. ...I might have a long way to go and perhaps an
insurmountable current of opposition to contend with, but I am going to bank
my hope on democracy meaning this when I say it and I am going to fight to
my last breath anyone who wishes to distort the meaning to some exact
opposite one. So, yes language does hold power over us.
dmb says:
Exactly. I thank you. George Orwell, who just stopped spinning in his grave
for a moment, thanks you. The people at Webster's and Random House thank
you. I'm currently reading a book call "WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION". It
documents all the lies and misleading statements made by the Bush
administration throughout the last year. And the most disturbing thing about
it is that most of the relevent quotes so far have come from the advertising
and public relations trade publications. Apparently these clowns have spent
literally millions of dollars in an effort to decieve the world. But there
ain't enough spin in the world to make it right.
Andy said:
But, as artists, poets, screenwriters, novelists, philosophers and others we
have the power to create new uses for language and this power can change the
world. At least that's what I'm banking on.
dmb says:
Right. Only the myth makers stand a chance. It takes a certain kind of
creative genuis, though. So I'm not exactly banking on it, but I have
invested a modest amount of hope in the courage of artist. (My screenplay is
exactly about that; the artist as hero.)
DMB: And its not enough to convince such a bigot that such terms are more
useful because it is a MORAL issue. Such a person, I think, will only change
when he can be presuaded that its not just a matter of being nice or fair,
but is a matter of his own moral status. Usefulness is about what is in the
hands, but morality is about what is in the heart and soul, if you know what
I mean.
Andy said:
I think I do, and I understand why you might think this. However, I would
expand the term usefulness to also be about what is in the heart and soul
if it would help us cope--or if it would lessen human suffering in the
world.
This is a barometer Rorty has proposed for usefulness. Maybe it isn't
perfect, but I like it. If is lessens human suffering and cruelty in the
world then we could call it useful.
dmb says:
This is a good example of why its important to explain ideas rather than
just throw slogans and jargon around. I mean, without any explanation a
person would never think of the alieviation of suffering and cruelty as any
kind of "usefulness". Its not a word we associate with the heart and soul. I
think that it goes way beyond imperfection. Even for an academic
philosopher, this is a pretty damn poor choice of words. In fact, its
downright misleading. And in that spirit, maybe I should think of Rorty
himself as a useful tool. Or at least some kind of tool. :-)
Thanks, Andy. I'll consider you my offical translator.
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 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 02:59:31 BST