From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 18:57:52 BST
Matt
Not entirely convincing argument by you. I think Pirsig is saying that we
will
value A over B 'now and forever' he takes this as true 'for people'. I would
be suspicious, as you are, about such an expression, but over the given
example, it is hard to imagine the valuation reversing. I feel that Pirsig's
point is that you can make a valuation and assert that you almost
certainly will be able to hold it for ever, on theoretical grounds
perhaps dismissible, but pragmatically probably 'true', can't see us
wanting to reverse this a over b value, and there is a hope here, I think,
that we can say things avbout values that can have some longevity, that
we can build upon. We probably all feel like that about valuing freedom.
I think it is unfair to pull this out for attack, it is trying to find a way
to
Pirsig's suggestion that we focus on our values and give up the SOM
attempt to establish objective certainty.
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: MD The narrator
> David,
>
> David said:
> You're right that this is a very key passage because it is hard for a
pragmatist to swallow. But is it not a very historical statement? It implies
we should see nature as an achievement, and therefore tey would are
justified in valuing one of its more difficult achievements over one of its
less so. In that sense it implies it took more time and effort to achieve.
This is a very in-history form of valuation, it says for all time in the
sense that what has now passed cannot be changed, we are pretty certain what
is the more complex and in some sense higher form of being.
>
> Matt:
> I just can't swallow that gloss. That statement isn't a historical
statement. Pirsig's talk of evolutionary patterns is historical, but talk
of "now and forever" is not. I don't see where you can smuggle in an eraser
with "forever". As far as I can tell, Pirsig isn't just talking about the
frozen past, but also the future. What gets Pirsig into trouble is the
opposition between an absolutely, scientific moral and an arbitrary social
convention. You wouldn't oppose them unless you thought arbitrary social
conventions existed. But talk of evolutionary patterns should neutralize
the idea of "arbitrariness". Things exist because they evolved that way and
we should be able to trace their evolution and give an account of why they
exist. If you do believe in the evolution of society (which it is hard not
to), the only reason to oppose the two is if you want to move from arbitrary
social conventions to absolute morals. It seems to me that implies some
sort of correspondenc
> e, getting more and more of our "arbitrary" social conventions to match up
with absolute morals. If it doesn't imply correspondence, then how would
you know if you moved from arbitrariness to absoluteness?
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 19:06:17 BST