[MD] freedom is for the rich

[Laird Bedore]

>>> [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. 
>   
[Laird]
I certainly wouldn't consider the MoQ to be in vain because it can't 
create an absolute moral code. Like our other fruits of intellect, it's 
a useful tool (arguably more useful than SOM) that requires a wielder of 
the tool to be of use. Rather than suggest it should be used by the few 
to dictate to the many, I think it's better suited to be used by the 
many to improve our debates, majority votes, means of government, etc.


>  
>   
>> 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. 
>   
[Laird]
Okay. Just try not to let perfection get in the way of Good. Many small 
improvements have an easier time statically latching than one huge 
improvement. At least if one fails, less is lost in the process.

-Laird