From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 22:06:38 BST
Hi David,
I agree with your interpretation on the intellectual level and human rights. We
probably don't need to discuss this much further because for the most part we
are on the same page. I will gladly serve as your official translator. But, I
just want to add that I think my understanding of Rorty pales in comparison to
Matt's. I think I might translate him to you better, because I don't come at
Rorty through philosophy. I read Rorty for his insights into America,
literature and liberalism. Rorty seems to have made a shift in emphasis in the
past few years. In the "Mirror of Nature" (1979) he sets up his philosophy and
critiques Plato, epistemology and all the rest. This book seems like a classic
and someday I might get my whole mind wrapped around it. But for now, it sits
on my shelf, having been started several times--and is just plain slow going for
me. This Rorty material Matt seems to be able to eat up because he has a much
broader base of philosophy than I. I have grasped on to Rorty's most recent
work, where he follows his own advice from "Mirror..." and stops doing
epistemology and instead substitutes hope for knowledge. However, I think it is
wrong to conclude from this that Rorty Hates philosophers or Philosophy. From
reading all of his works you get exactly the opposite imppression. A love for
philosophy shines throughout his writings, even when he is being critical of it.
I would also say the same thing of Matt.
Regards,
Andy
> 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
>
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 - 22:07:24 BST