From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 00:41:38 GMT
Hello Paul, Matt and all MOQers:
Matt said:
The first problem I see in your alternative interpretation is, if we are
dealing with an evolutionary system, why would you ever say that a species
will _always_ be better able to survive than another (simply taking it from
a
biological standpoint)?
Paul replied:
It's not about ability to survive, it's about the most Dynamic. Humans
are more Dynamic than germs.
dmb says:
I think Paul's "alternative" interpretation of the "now and forever" passage
is actually right on target. Pirsig is talking about the MOQ's evolutionary
morality and the patient/germ contrast is just one (slam-dunk) example. In
fact, chapter 13 is where the moral codes are spelled out. If one reads the
"now and forever" passage with the pragmatist/metaphysician issue foremost
in one's mind, then its possible to read his emphatic language about
"absolutely, scientifically moral" choices as a "metaphysical" claim about
eternal truth. But I think that language is only designed to show the MOQ's
stark contrast with our conventional (SOM) view of morality, which is
described, on the very same page, as "a minor, subjective, physically
non-existent part of the universe". Pirsig is only saying that "given a
value-centered MOQ" a germ will always lose out to the human - as long as
there are germs and humans, etc.
Matt said:
And where does he say, "When the distance between patterns, in
evolutionary terms, is shorter he says it is not as clear but that the
MOQ can help analysis of moral issues nonetheless"? Where are you
getting your juice for spinning the passage that way?
Paul quoted:
"In the moral evolutionary conflict between the germ and the patient,
the evolutionary spread is enormous and as a result the morality of the
situation is obvious. But when the static patterns in conflict are
closer the moral force of the situation becomes less obvious."
dmb says:
Right. I think Paul's "juice" is Pirsig's book and his "spin" is actually
quite solid. In chapter 13 Pirsig also says, "What the evolutionary
structure of the MOQ shows is that there is not just one moral system. There
are many." ..."At these higher levels the issues become more interesting."
...and "Morality is not a simple set of rules. Its a complex struggle of
conflicting patterns of values. This conflict is the residue of evolution."
Matt said:
I'm not saying that Pirsig is or isn't a degenerate metaphysician or is or
isn't a good pragmatist. ...I say simply that he _sounds_ like a
metaphysician sometimes, or he _sounds_ like a pragmatist at other times.
Paul replied:
I think he is a pragmatic metaphysician.
dmb says:
Some people call him the space cowboy. Some call him the gangster of love.
What's important is the substance of the man. But seriously, is it helpful
to read Pirsig with this metaphysician/pragmatist issue in mind? If doing so
makes Paul's straitforward reading look like alternative spin, then it seems
the answer is no. I don't have the time or inclination to describe in detail
exactly how and where the cart came off the wheels, but one thing is clear.
Pirsig ain't talkin' about that issue and reading the passage as if he were
only serves to distort its meaning.
Thanks.
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 Jan 18 2004 - 00:44:55 GMT