[MD] Intellectual and Social

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Steve,

Astute response on all counts. Would it be correct to say, based on the 
MOQ and the lack of certainty, that one's worldview is, like beauty, a 
matter of taste?

Thanks,
Platt  


On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:53, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Platt, Matt,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM,  <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote t"o Mary
> > Right you are according to the MOQ. But some people believe God
> > accounts for many things just as many others believe chance explains a
> > lot (the "Oops" crowd). My point was that all-purpose explanations that
> > ultimately depend on a mysterious force (DQ, God, Chance, etc.) are
> > vulnerable to legitimate criticism. When it comes right down to it, the
> > convictions people have about the way the world works depend on one
> > or more unprovable assumptions. Regardless of how convincing, all
> > metaphysics begins with a leap of faith.
> 
> Steve:
> I think it would be better to drop the idea of faith and say that the
> selection of intellectual constructions is done based on Quality.
> 
> Recall Pirsig's: "One can then examine intellectual realities the same
> way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to
> find out which one is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy and
> keep those that are of value.  There are many sets of intellectual
> reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality
> than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history
> and current patterns of values."
> 
> Platt:
> >> Bruce's example is an empirical fact established by observation and
> >> experiment. But, where is the evidence that values are involved?  How
> >> do we convince doubters that the germ-immunity conflict is a moral
> >> struggle? I mean it's easy to say that all battles are moral battles. But,
> >> how do you prove it in court?
> 
> Steve:
> I don't think the sort of certainty about which picture (the Quality
> picture or the subject-object picture of reality or some other
> picture) is ultimately better is possible. There is no "objective
> court" where a given picture must be proven to be the true picture.
> There are only human perspectives where what we perceive as having
> more quality is a "result of our [individual] histor[ies] and current
> patterns of value."
> 
> But we can hope to convince some others that the Quality picture is
> better if we do a good enough job making our case. Cleary Pirsig's
> arguments worked on us, but they did not work on, for example, Ham
> (based on recent comments it seems that he has finally got around to
> reading Pirsig's books). The way to convince someone is tell more and
> better stories to disrupt his or her current patterns of value so that
> new patterns of value are formed which are favorable to the MOQ. In
> Ham's case, he identifies strongly with certain patterns that are
> incompatible with the MOQ and is therefore unlikely to be swayed.
> 
> I think Matt Kundert would argue that the sort of metaphysical
> certainty you are looking for is what drove Pirsig to insanity and
> later to developing a new metaphysics.
> 
> Matt, what do you think? Did Pirsig find some comfortable resolution
> in his quest for certainty?
> 
> Best,
> Steve