From: InfoPro Consulting: Mark Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 20:23:33 BST
H Platt,
When you argue your position the way you do below, it's a pleasure to interact with you. Thanks.
msh said:
> But the third quote is misleading. It is presented as a single
> paragraph when in fact it is composed of two paragraphs, the first
> coming several pages after the second, thus placing both paragraphs
> out of context. Quoting in this way gives the illusion of thought
> continuity and mutual support, where in fact none may exist. I'll
> try to provide context and continuity in my analysis.
On 11 May 2004 at 11:05, Platt Holden wrote:
ph:
Yes, thought continuity and mutual support may not exist between
separate paragraphs, but in this case, as in all good writing, it
does.
msh
Well, you gotta watch those ALL statements: they usually rest on some
thinly disguised tautology, good means thought-continuous, therefore
thought-continuous writing is good. IMO, there's lots of great
writing where thought continuity is deliberately avoided. But, in
general, I agree with you.
> Pirsig Idea 2) The germ wants to live. The patient wants to live.
But the patient has moral precedence because he's at a higher level
of evolution.
>
> msh
> Ok, this is something different. This is saying that, within the
> biological level, there is at work a secondary moral hierarchy.
ph said:
Don't think so. The 'patient' Pirsig refers to is a human being and
thus above the biological level. For that reason she is morally
superior. .
msh asks:
She's above the biological level? You mean she's pure thought?
msh said:
> Here Pirsig appears to say that biological evolution, in the
Darwinian sense, is equivalent to moral evolution, so that beings at
the "lower" end of the biological spectrum have less moral "value"
than those "above."
ph said:
Since the patient in the example is a human, she exists at a higher
moral level (social plus intellectual) than the germ.
msh says:
It's interesting, isn't it, how human animals are constantly
reassuring themselves that only they are capable of thought? Slave
owners said the same thing about themselves with respect to slaves.
ph said:
If a human acts criminally against society, however, his criminal act
is biological in nature.
msh says:
Societys define and prioritize criminality in all sorts of ways, most
of them for the sole purpose of legitimizing the extant society. So
a guy smacking you and grabbing your wallet does some mean time in
prison or county jail, while a gal who steals millions, including the
life savings of lotsa moms and pops, devastating thousands of
families, pays a fine.
msh said:
> I think it's important, for clarity's sake, to maintain a
distinction between moral evolution, as seen in progressing through
the four primary levels of moral reality, and biological evolution.
ph:
In the patient-germ example, Pirsig is talking about the four primary
levels of evolutionary morality, not biological evolution.
msh:
Apparently not. Unless you're saying humans aren't biological.
msh said:
> Most evolution biologists, I think, disdain the use of the words
"higher" and "lower" in describing a species' orientation with
respect to the biological continuum. If they don't, they should.
The reason is that such a distinction invites precisely the sort of
interpretation Pirsig appears to offer, that is that some beings are
axiomatically of "higher" value than others.
ph said:
Evolution biologists, being scientists, disdain applying better or
worse to changes occurring in nature. Such judgments would admit to
some supernatural purpose and design which, of course, the scientific
community resoundly rejects.
msh says:
The scientific community? Many scientists believe in god. If they
are thoughtful scientists they don't let that belief influence their
scientific investigations. Thoughtful scientists, I think, disdain
the use of "higher lower better worse" because they know that their
ideas might be purloined in support of non-scientifc beliefs.
msh said:
I think a better way of putting it is that, within biological
evolution, some beings are more complex than others, and that this
complexity, within and between species, seems to increase over time.
ph said:
In your view, then, are complex creatures better than simple ones?
msh says:
No, Just more biologically complex.
msh said:
So I see the action of the bear who kills the hunter who's
threatening herself and her cubs as every bit as moral as the man who
kills the threatening germ. I therefore reject the principle as
stated in the quote.
ph said:
Are you saying that a bear who kills a "source of thought" is as
moral as a man who kills a threatening germ? Please review Pirsig's
passage about capital punishment. (Lila, 13) I think it's relevant.
msh says:
See comment above, re sources of thought. RPT (reasonably perceived
threat) is a pivotal point in Pirsig's excellent argument AGAINST
capital punishment.
msh said:
However, the MOQ is so valuable that I am unwilling to toss it out
with this only murky bath water. Instead, I'll do a little
filtering. I'd like to amend this principle to include the a priori
idea that there is no need to place more "value" on one species over
another, or on one individual over another within a species. That
is, I would like to expand Pirsig's "principle of human equality"
(LILA-14) to include non-human beings as well.
ph responded:
This is radical equality that defies experience and common sense.
But, my comments about it will have to be postponed to a later post
as this is already too long.
msh says:
It defies neither experience nor common sense, IMO. I guess I'll
have to wait for your later post.
ph asked:
What is your moral reason for choosing the perceived threat to the
man over the perceived threat to the germ, since you say the germ is
as valuable as the man?
msh says:
I have no moral reason for choosing the man over the germ. It's
purely biological self defense. Rationality does not apply.
msh said:
Now, of course, the question of what's reasonable, and what's not, is
a whole other philosophical issue to be explored. And, in the case
of the mother bear defending herself and her cubs, it's certainly a
mistake of anthropomorphism to say that the bear made a "rational"
decision to kill the threatening man. But we animals who
philosophize can also empathize, so we should be able to characterize
her actions as reasonable, and therefore influence any decision we
might make regarding her future.
ph said:
According to Pirsig it's precisely because we are animals "who
philosophize" that puts us at a higher moral level than animals,
unless we lower ourselves, like criminals, to animal-like behavior.
msh says:
I should have said we are animals who appear to ourselves to be
philosophizing. It always tickles me to hear human animals knocking
all the others: "Stop that! You're acting like an animal! All you
criminals are behaving like ANIMALS!" I can't think of another
animal who kills to put an extra million in his bank account. Can
you?
ph said:
I think your "value equality between species" and "perceived threat"
ideas need to be further amplified and explained. "Perceived threat"
raises the question "threat to whom by whom? and on what basis do you
choose that a threat takes moral precedence over the threatening
party?
msh says:
Fair enough. I think value equality between species is an
unverifiable premise of my own metaphysics, posited as a result of
natural observation. Due to the lack of human animal understanding
of the mental processes of other animals, we can only note the
behavior of other animals and try to draw valid inferences, including
a grasp of RPT. The rabbit runs from the coyote, and shrieks when it
is caught. For a while the fox eludes the hounds, then shrieks as it
is torn to pieces. The wounded deer whimpers, cries, with fear and
pain (and I mean literally) beneath the gaze of the proud human
hunter. In my metaphysics, any animal is morally entitled to self-
defense. Whether or not it is capable of successful self-defense is
irrelevant.
As for species equality, I would agree that the only good deadly
germ is a dead germ, but not all elephants are good elephants (rogue
elephants destroying native villages) and not all people rise above
the biological level in their behavior (terrorists wantonly killing
without regard for human life, like germs.)
msh says:
My guess is that all elephants are born pretty much equal, just as
are the offspring of human animals. Whether or not they become
"rogue" is a matter of environment-nature-nurture. As for wanton
terrorists, please remember that terrorism is not limited to people
crashing hijacked airplanes into buildings. In fact, it's carried out
much more efficiently if you have an Air Force.
ph:
Hope you consider my feedback at least partially constructive even if
we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. :-)
msh:
As mentioned at the beginning of this post, I do.
Thanks,
Mark Heyman
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' 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 : Tue May 11 2004 - 20:21:33 BST