From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 14:55:22 BST
Andy
Good post, I agree with it entirely.
I do not care if I read Rorty or Pirsig in the way
they intended, how could I find out, I just want to use
them positively.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 10:36 PM
Subject: RE: MD MoQ platypuses
> Hi David,
>
> You Quote Pirsig,
> "What passed for morality within this crowd was a kind of vague, amorphous
soup
> of sentiments known as "human rights". You were also supposed to be
> "reasonable". What these terms really meant was never spelled out in any
way
> that Phaedrus had ever heard. You were just supposed to cheer for them. He
knew
> now that the reason nobody ever spelled them out was nobody ever could. In
a
> subject-object understanding of the world these terms have no meaning.
>
> There is no such thing as "human rights". There is no such thing as moral
> reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and nothing else. This soup
of
> sentiments about logically non-existent entities can be straightened out
by the
> MOQ. ...According to the MOQ these "human rights" have not just a
sentimental
> basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the
evolution
> of a higher level of life. They are for real"
>
> Andy: Well, I do see here a contradiction between Rorty and Pirsig.
Rorty
> obviously doesn't believe there is a metaphysical basis for human rights.
I
> might be going off on a tangeant here, but I don't want to argue from
Rorty's
> position here. Rather I will argue from my own. I don't want to
criticize
> Pirsig too much, because like Rorty we need to look at his whole body of
work
> and not just a few select quotes to understand his philosophy and the MOQ.
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.
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. 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.
>
> You say:
> "Pirsig's take seems to correspond to the real world and the problems were
are
> faced with, while Rorty seems to be attacking a position held by nobody. I
mean,
> is there a serious thinker who believes democracy and human rights have an
> eternally fixed definition?"
>
> Andy: From the Pirsig quote above, this would seem to me to be exactly
what
> Pirsig is saying.
>
> DMB: "If so, that would be news to me. It seems quite obvious that the
problem
> is exactly the opposite, that no one has been able to pin it down or spell
it
> out and that the meaning of the word changes through time and from place
to place."
>
> Andy: Exactly!
>
> DMB:"Do we have power over our language? Again, it seems that Rorty is
exactly
> wrong and that exactly the opposite is true."
>
> Andy: Well let's be precise here. I said we have power over our language
not
> Rorty, but let's go on.
>
> DMB: "Language has power over us. Words like these refer to a certain
kind of
> experience. We don't alter experience by using better or different words.
New
> words come into existence and old words change their meaning through a
process
> that has very little to do with an individual's will power. I mean, we
can't
> force a bigot to become a civil rights activists by simply forcing him to
say
> "African-American" rather than "nigger". Such a person will simply
transfer all
> the hate onto the new term and nothing has changed except in the most
> superficial way."
>
> Andy: I think I agree with you here. 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. THese are not the
use of
> the words I would wish them to be used for. But, it will take some work
to
> convince many people that democracy does not mean giving select indivduals
the
> freedom to do whatever they like, without government intervention, with
property
> they have come im possesion of--such as Iraqi oil. Democracy means all
> individuals in society deserve the same rights to pursue happiness. It
means
> lessening human suffering and cruelty. It means not exploiting workers
for
> profit. It means not exploiting a ecological system that benefits us all
for a
> short-term profit. It means not disregarding the rights of future
individuals
> to also enjoy the vast richest on this earth including clean air and
water. Now,
> 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. 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 lkeast that's what I'm banking on.
>
> 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.
>
> Andy: You mean it won't do any good to just tell Platt to just be nice.
:-)
>
> DMB: 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: 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: Further, I think we can fairly easily demonstate that an emphasis on
> property rights as a definition of democratic principles is quite
wrong-headed.
> The slavers of the old south asserted their "property rights" (as well as
the
> Bible) to justify all kinds of cruelty and injustice. Its really not so
> different today. Property rights are asserted to justify all kinds of
little
> evils including less conspicious forms of exploitation and cruelty.
>
> Andy: Yes, indeed!
>
> DMB: I think the MOQ's solution goes a long way toward preventing that
kind of
> non-sense, while Rorty seems to be putting us right back into that
sentimental soup.
>
> Andy: Well, I am not going to annoint myself as an expert on Pirsig's
MOQ, but
> I have witnessed plenty who would that have reached just these sort of
non-sense
> solotions from the MOQ. And, I really don't think I can prevent them from
> reaching these conclusions. This is exactly what Rorty would say we
cannot
> prevent, because we cannot point to any authority above our own experience
and
> history. Rather, we should continue to try and pursuade through open
> communication and discussions and also through creating.
>
> DMB: "Does that make sense? Does that show Prisig and Rorty as oil and
water, or
> what?"
>
> Andy: I think it makes sense. Does it show Pirsig and Rorty as oil and
water.
> No. I think I might agree that Rorty is not going to help you get from
> Pirsig what you want to get. But, he helps me read Pirsig and a lot of
others I
> am reading. What Matt has been trying to say in his mixture of Pirsig and
Rorty
> and "strong misreadings" is that Pirsig will not be the last word on the
MOQ or
> even Pirsigs work. We all will interpret what he has said. Some of us
will
> interpret his work by trying to discover his exact intentions in
everything he
> said. They will try and make the MOQ cohere by looking to Pirsigs work
and
> everything he said in the past and hopefully into the future. Others will
try
> and make the MOQ cohere by adding something that Pirsig never intended,
because
> they see some contradiction in the MOQ that cannot be mended without this
> addition. And others will combine Pirsig with something else in order to
create
> something brand new and beautiful. All of this will fall under the
heading of
> MOQ in the future.
>
> Thats what I think anyway,
> Andy
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 - 15:00:37 BST