From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 14:19:06 GMT
Matt, Paul, All
> Platt said:
> And thank goodness you don't have to wait around for any
> "intersubjective agreement" to make the change. As Pirsig said, "A tribe
> can changes its values only person by person and someone has to be
> first." In other words, individuals change things for the better, not
> street mobs.
>
> Matt:
> I would just like to say that, despite Platt's virulent hatred of
> pragmatism and the intersubjective continuum, he's endorsed the idea. I
> always knew Platt did, because of his emphasis on individuals and an
> aesthetic sense, but something got in the way of Platt recognizing it.
> Pirsig says, "A tribe can change its values only person by person and
> someone has to be first." The contrast between 'tribe' and 'individual'
> is the contrast between one person agreeing to a belief (the
> "subjective" pole of the continuum) and a lot of people agreeing to a
> belief (the "objective" pole of the continuum). This is Pirsig
> endorsing the continuum. This is all I have ever been saying. If Platt
> is not convinced by this, I have no more arguments and explications to
> pull out. As I've always said, its not 'groupthink'. Its simply the
> contrast between an idiosyncratic belief and common sense, one person
> with a great idea about to try and change the world, and a whole lotta'
> people believin g in democray and freedom.
The fault with your "continuum" as a description of "intersubjective
agreement" was clearly explained by Paul:
"However, given your added definition, and my understanding of the
English language, I think it is poor terminology to use
"intersubjective" when it might only refer to one person and
"agreement" when there is potentially none and no requirement for any.
Therefore, if you take away the necessity for "inter" and "agreement"
you are left with "subjective," which seems to be a better term for
what pragmatists are referring to."
Thanks Paul. Just let me add that beliefs are always subjective whether
in one mind or a million. There are no "objective" beliefs. "Objective"
means independent of beliefs.
Matt maintains that Pirsig supports Rortyism, but I find precious
little in Rorty's philosophy (of lack of it) that tackles the issue of
morality that is the central theme of the MOQ. This apparent lack of
interest in quality, values and aesthetics is my main complaint against
Rorty. For example, it appears Rorty is not aware that truth is
intimately connected to morality, even though pragmatist James was
fully aware of the connection:
"James said, 'Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually
supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it.' He
said, 'The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the
way of belief.' 'Truth is a species of good.' That was right on. That
was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a
static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality."
(Lila, chp.29)
A person whose morality depends on the foundationless feelings of some
amorphous group rather than an intellectually conceived standard of
right and wrong is not only to be pitied, but feared. For example,
consider the Islamo-fascists. They are a living example of
"intersubjective agreement" gone terribly awry.
Platt
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 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 14:18:36 GMT