[MD] Transhumanism

[Mary]

Hi Matt,

> Hi Mary,
> 
> I believe you are sincere, and have my best interests at
> heart, just as I do when I say you're unwittingly playing for
> the wrong team (Platonists of the past, rather than the
> Pirsigians of the future), but we certainly have widely
> divergent views on this issue.
> 
> Mary said:
> Humility is the central concept of the MoQ.
> 
> Matt:
> Nah.  I demur.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
This is funny!  Made me laugh. ;)
\
> Mary said:
> "Personal" humility is BS.  Anyone can learn to spout it
> automatically without truly believing a word of it.  At times,
> it is actually the expected thing to do, but I believe Pirsig
> sees the bigger picture.  He really DOES think his ideas
> should be a starting point rather than an end.  So did
> Buddha.
> 
> Matt:
> The above is why I demur.  The bigger picture, I believe, is
> that believing in philosophical theses _will not_, in the end,
> change the world as Pirsig hopes.  

[Mary Replies] 
That's kind of sad.

If you are right about
> what Pirsig thinks is the big picture (which I wobble on
> assenting to), then I think Pirsig gets the big picture wrong.


[Mary Replies] 
Pirsig is right when he says the Intellectual Level is "thinking itself".
The thing is, I think the 'thinking itself' we all do is SOM.  He's pointing
out that that is a choice we made.  Or, not even really a choice because it
is almost impossible in our present circumstances to do otherwise.    

> To your assertion, I reply, personal humility is absolutely
> _not_ bullshit and that thinking it is allows people to think
> that if a person doesn't agree with me about X or Y
> philosophical thesis (like using Pirsig's MoQ when expositing
> their own philosophy), then they can be treated with
> contempt.  

[Mary Replies] 
Not at all directed at you, but after years I'm beginning to learn how to
dish back out what is received.  Sometimes that is not ladylike. 

You say people can learn to spout humility, and
> I say they can learn to spout a sentence (i.e., a thesis)
> much easier than faking a personality trait like humility,
> though both can be done.  I agree that Pirsig views his
> ideas as a starting point, as did the Buddha, as did Plato,
> as did James, as did Rorty, as do I.  But I don't see the
> connection between starting points and making humility
> central to one's philosophical system.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Pirsig's ideas struck sparks that have influence in many areas, but for me
(or in my humble opinion, or whatever phrase is least objectionable to
everyone, for I do not intend to be objectionable) it was his insights into
our fundamental relationship with reality that gave the MoQ its power.  If I
were to have first encountered his later, more tepid views from comments
after the books instead of the books first, they would not have had so much
power or meaning.  To get back on here after so many years to find that
Pirsig seemingly recanting his major insights of the past is to leave the
MoQ with little to say.

> Mary said:
> These ambiguous feelings are detrimental to your personal
> growth.  That is your choice.  For myself I choose to fight
> my own ego.  There is NO OTHER THING TO DO and I am
> not ashamed to admit it.  Are you?
> 
> Matt:
> You think that because I don't assent to a specific
> philosophical thesis (humility as central to the MoQ), then
> I'm being held back.  I am determinedly unambiguous in
> thinking that it is a mistake to hold that thesis, though
> wobbly as to whether Pirsig does.  Which makes your
> indictment, I take it, to be worse.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I think what I think as do you, and we will probably both continue to
attempt to explain ourselves in this forum.  The real beauty of the MoQ is
in how it can be appreciated in so many different ways. 
 
> I'm sure my intuitions about how the world works are what
> holds back my personal growth, but the struggle of life isn't
> dropping _all_ of these intuitions (which is the sneer Pirsig
> let loose when he walked out of Benares in ZMM), but
> figuring out which intuitions are the one's holding you back
> and which ones are to be kept.  You're blurring together in
> an unhelpful way the "ego" of "egotistical" and the Latin
> "ego" for "self."  There are connections, but I think you
> state well how we should _not_ see them.  I fight my
> immense ego to achieve a sense of humbleness before
> talking to others so that I might inhabit what they are
> saying long enough to see if what they think might be
> better than what I think.  But that's different than the
> philosophical view that "there is no self."
> 
[Mary Replies] 
And I think it is exactly the same as 'there is no self'.  Who else?

> Mary said:
> I truly apologize for hitting you over the head with this, but
> as I see it, this is the crux of the difference between your
> interpretation and DMBs, some others, and mine.
> 
> Matt:
> No, no--stating explicitly these things without being snide
> about it is a step forward in my book.  My problem is
> philosophical: I think it is your viewpoint that leads to
> anti-humbleness in personal interactions.  It's hard to
> explicate, but my suspicion is that when you turn personal
> humility into a philosophical program, you're just
> reduplicating Platonism, which produces the idea that I'd
> rather be right than a decent person.  Because placing
> humility as a central philosophical thesis, you are demanding
> others to assent to it, that this is the right thing to think.
> It is _the_ central mistake of ZMM: placing dialectic ahead
> of rhetoric.  If one places rhetoric ahead of dialectic, then
> one places decency (i.e. the "rhetorical persona" that
> makes up one's personality) ahead of being right (i.e.
> asserting as true the right collection of sentences, like
> "rhetoric before dialectic").  Placing rhetoric before dialectic,
> decency before righteousness, is what produces the feeling
> of vulgar relativism from recalcitrant Platonists.  Marsha's
> right about relativism insofar as it means I'd rather be a
> decent person than right and an asshole.  Because in the
> long run, my money's on decency to _produce_ the "right
> sentences"--as Rorty liked to put it, "take care of freedom
> and truth will take care of itself."
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I hear what you are saying, though I don't at the moment remember who the
rhetoriticians were vs the dialecticians, or even necessarily where Plato
came down on anything (it's late).  I don't have to 'always be right', but I
have the right to speak up and if you think I am being overly assertive I
refer you to almost any other post by any other person for examples of real
acrimony.  There is a double standard. Sometimes I choose to pretend it is
not there.

Best,
Mary