[MD] freedom is for the rich

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>:


> > [Platt]
> > The question is what is the "greater good" among patterns A, B and C? On what
> > basis does one decide? Incidentally, Pirsig's view of a pragmatic approach 
> > is less than flattering. See Chap. 29 of Lila.
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> And that fine question is why we have disagreements, debates, majority 
> votes, democracies, and courts - to mediate the varying levels of value 
> we each assign to patterns A, B, and C. The more significant the 
> disagreement, the further up the mediation ladder it goes. We expect a 
> degree of reason and open-mindedness from the people debating and 
> deciding these value-comparisons, and we often end up with a result that 
> is better than the cause of the disagreement. Not always, mind you, but 
> most of the time. Shit happens. Very pragmatic indeed.

Right you are. But in a website devoted to an "Inquiry into Morals" and the
outline at least of a metaphysics based on a universal moral order, we ought
to "come up with result" most can agree to. Otherwise, it's pretty much back to
to the prevailing moral code of "Who are you to judge?" My hope has always been
that we can do better than that. But, as you say, maybe not. Still, it would be
too bad if the MOQ was all in vain. 
 
> On Pirsig and pragmatism (Lila, ch 29, pp 416,417), Pirsig is 
> specifically taking aim at how James tried to popularize it by attaching 
> 'practicality' to it. The Nazi example isn't even about pragmatism - 
> it's about understanding the role of social patterns of value. Pirsig 
> attacks "satisfaction", and for a half-assed dazzle effect he quipped, 
> "[the nazis] considered it to be practical" in order to quickly dismiss 
> discussion of pragmatism and sweep it under the rug. He's just 
> cliff-noting over pragmatism so he can get to radical empiricism, which 
> is what really drew his interest. Don't read too much into his one-pager 
> on pragmatism, Pirsig didn't either.

You may be right. But since he took the time and trouble to point out the
weakness of James' pragmatism, I wouldn't associate it with the MOQ as you did
in appealing to "the pragmatic MOQ approach." But, I could be wrong. 

Platt
 


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/