[MD] Transhumanism

[John Carl]

Matt and Mary,

Nice conversation you guys.  I just want to jump in on a point or more:

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>wrote:


>  I thought you were
> right: this does appear to be a root disagreement,
> because--as I reconstruct--you want to make humility a
> philosophical assertion (about which may or may not be
> assented to) and I want to leave it a personal virtue.


John:

That's an interesting debate.  And I see Mary's point.  I agree with her.  I
think humility is more than a personal virtue, I believe it is a key
philosophical foundation.  My mind shoots back to an Ellul quote I pasted
once or twice   "Only Socrates speaks truly because only Socrates listens."
Um... no, that wasn't exactly an Ellul quote, it was Ellul quoting
Kierkegaard.  About philosophers who talk and talk of systems, they "build
castles out of air and live beside them in a hut. "

The point there, and you should appreciate this Matt, is that Philosophy
isn't about expounding systems, Philosophy is about conversation.  And to
have conversation, you must listen as well as speak. And without humility,
there is no listening.

Mary 1
Matt 0


Matt:


>  You
> think that the philosophical assertion is important, I think
> because it leads to personal humility (something along the
> lines of "Pirsig and the Buddha held this thesis about
> humility, therefore their own personal humility was a
> consequence of it").  I think just the opposite happens.  I
> think once one turns it into a philosophical assertion, you
> pave the way for ignoring humility.
>
>

John:

Well on the first part, if you are construing Mary properly, I agree with
you Matt, at least as far as precedence.  I think philosophy is a
consequence of humility rather than the other way around.  Philosophy is
born when we first ask and we only ask when we're not sure we already know
it all.

What is the paving mechanism?  How does that work?  Are you saying that
making it a philosophical assertion thereby includes it as system, and
obviates it's usefulness?
That might be true, in a way, but you'd have to make it more clear.  Half a
point to Matt.



> But when I opened up this area where it would seem we
> disagree, you thought I was saying _you_ have a
> personality fault, "always be right," or that I didn't think
> you had a right to speak up, or were being overly
> assertive.  Your post was refreshing absent of acrimony
> (despite the fact that expressions of "I hope for your sake
> you grow out of what you think some day" seem naturally
> condescending, but what else is really at stake when we
> engage in the act of persuasion).  I thought I mentioned
> that.  But I do absolutely think that in the long run,
> adherence to your view has more potential to create
> acrimonious people than my view, as counterintuitive as
> that may seem.  And it's for the reason Pirsig laid out at
> the end of ZMM, when you make the Good subservient to
> the True, which is what I think happens when you
> makeover humility into a philosophical thesis.
>


John:

The thing about "counterintuitive" is that it needs more explication than
the intuitive.  So I need to see how you think Mary's view  does this.  I
take it you equate philosophical thesis with a formulation of truth, and
humility as formulation of good.  But what I'm saying, and it seems to me
Mary could be coming from this place as well, is that philosophy only can
happen in the context of this good - humility.

Truth, especially if arrogantly formulated, will have less persuasive impact
than error that is part of a process that attains truth in the end because
its open-ended, provisional and humble.

Match goes to Mary.

Take care,

John