From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 19:26:52 BST
MSH, Platt and all:
Mark Steven Heyman said:
I'm not sure why a small village is necessarily a higher form of
social evolution than, say, a pirate ship full of brigands. Because
it doesn't move? Because the pirates are bad guys? It's always
wrong to steal? Probably. But certainly debatable. Anyway, I get
and agree with the point; but this sort of statement supports my
contention that Pirsig sees a secondary moral hierarchy at work on
the Social/Cultural level.
dmb says:
I'd certainly agree that there are levels within levels, so to speak. Ken
Wilber paints an evolutionary hierarchy too, but with much finer grades so
Pirsig's social level would be split into 3 or 4 thinner layers, if you
will. And its seems self-evident to me that this is the case with all
levels. Surely there is a distinction to be made between an elephant and a
virus, etc. In the Pirsig quote, however, I think the operative term is
"self-defense". The invading brigands (Is that redundant?) are not
necessarily lower on the evolutionary scale, its just that they are the
aggressors. The village, like all beings, has a right "to prevent its own
destruction". It could be that he's thinking of the difference between the
wandering life-style of hunter-gatherers and settled villagers. I could see
making an evolutionary argument for it in that case, because the
agricultural culture is almost certainly more evolved.
msh said:
A more interesting point here is that the wording of Q2-1,
particularly the words "at first seem to say", strongly implies that
there is a big "BUT" coming. Maybe society does NOT have the right
to murder people. But the quote, as presented, leaves us hanging.
Happily, we can turn to the text in order to complete the thought.
dmb says:
Is there a latin term for the kind of selective reading that Platt has
demonstated? I can think of quite a few anglo-saxon terms, but I wonder how
this kind of fallacy is construed in Latin. In any case, I think that all
good interpretations of the MOQ have to hang together so that Pirsig is not
made to contradict himself. If possible that he could. Anyone can make a
mistake of course, but I think its safe to say that the MOQ holds together
quite well and that when it appears otherwise the mistake is not Pirsig's
but the reader's. And so selective reading is usually employed to assert
something Pirsig's MOQ does not claim. Around here this fallacious tactic is
usually used to deny the political and religious implications of the MOQ.
This makes sense, I guess. The more emotional and deeply held beliefs are
harder to shake. Social level values are bound to clash with larger
intellectual systems of understanding. So when a person who identifies
chiefly with the older level comes up against the more evolved values there
is often an immune system response that does not allow the threatening ideas
to penetrate. This kind of distortion often looks like a deliberate
distortion and/or willful ignorance, but I've come to understand that it is
often a sincere interpretation, however incorrect it might be, and the
perpetrator honestly CAN'T see the problem. And no, I do not think I'm
immune to this problem. None of us are. But I like to believe that I've
learned to sense when I'm in over my head, to acknowledge that there are
books and perspectives for which I am not yet ready.
Pirsig Idea Q2-2) "When the United States drafted troops for the
Civil War everyone knew that innocent people would be murdered. The
North could have permitted the slave states to become independent and
saved hundreds of thousands of lives."
msh
Although I agree with this idea, I should point out that here, and in
idea Q2-3 below, Pirsig is oversimplify the reasons for the Civil War
in order to make his point; at least, I hope the oversimplification
is deliberate. The Civil War was about freeing slaves in the same way
that America's involvement in WWII was about saving Jews. Which is
to say, not much, an ancillary benefit at best.
dmb:
I'm a Zinn fan and all, but I think you've underestimated the Abolitionist
cause in this view. There is some truth to the idea that slavery was not the
central issue then as school children are taught, but I also think the issue
is minimized by today's neo-confederate apologists just as it was by those
making a case at the time. The desire to maintain the system of slavery was
couched in more palatable terms like "state's rights", "property rights" and
the like. And even the Republicans in Lincoln's north had to couch it in
terms of preserving the Union. It was virtually unthinkable to baldly assert
the equality of African-American people at the time. There were just as many
bigots in the north and New York city grew rich on southern wealth. There
were many other important factors, to be sure, but I think its an
overstatement to say slavery was an "ancillary" issue. As I read it, the
civil war was actually an effort to finish the Amnerican Revolution. They
put it all on paper by 1789, but the ideals of freedom, democracy and the
equality of rights had no real meaning for millions until slavery was ended.
The fuse on that bomb burned for over 70 years before it finally went off.
Pirsig Idea Q2-3) "But an evolutionary morality argues that the North
was right in pursuing that war because a nation is a higher form of
evolution than a human body, and the principle of human equality is
an even higher form than a nation. John Brown's truth was never an
abstraction. It still keeps marching on." (Lila, 13)
msh
Nothing much to disagree with here. I'll buy it off the rack. I
particularly like the phrase "the principle of human equality is an
even higher form [of moral evolution] than a nation." I mentioned
this in my previous post. Working within the MOQ, such words become
heavy with meaning: If a nation violates, suppresses, destroys, or
in any other way impedes or diminishes even a single person's chance
for equality with his fellow beings, it is MORALLY IMPERATIVE that
that corrupted nation be destroyed. Tough but true words, I think.
dmb
Well, yes, the corrupted elements should be eliminated and we ought to do
whatever we can to exercise and protect these rights. But let's not make
perfection the enemy of the pretty darn good, you know? I think the USA, for
example, has been trying to live up to those ideals with only limited
success, but its not so limited as to warrant destruction, simply further
improvement. But I think you're quite right about the depth of meaning these
terms acquire in the MOQ. There, human rights are not just a great
sentiment, a nice idea or protection from political oppression, it is the
mechanism that protects intellectual evolution, that supports the ongoing
direction of life itself.
Tanks.
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 May 09 2004 - 19:30:45 BST