[MD] Transhumanism

[John Carl]

Oops, I should have said, "Match goes to Mary,  Take care that it doesn't go
to your head!"

John

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>