[MD] Reason, Tradition

[Matt Kundert]

DMB, Platt, Mike, Arlo,

Matt said:
I gather you say rejecting the distinction would mean "admitting that 'our' 
values are as inculcated as anyone else's" because you don't want to admit 
that.

DMB said:
Its not that I don't want to admit that. Its just that I don't think it 
matters. As I understand the MOQ the social and intellectual level values 
are both "inclucated", but that doesn't stop them from being different. It 
seems that going along with Platt's idea of the "individual level" might be 
source of confusion here. See, I think the intellectual level has a 
collective dimension just like the social level does. I think its a big 
mistake to equate the 3rd/4th level distinction as anything like a 
collective/individual distinction.

Matt:
We agree, then, that culture and everything like that is socialized.  And I 
agree with you and Arlo that a "collective/individual" distinction doesn't 
sound right, either.  But I'm still unrequited in thinking that the 
social/intellectual doesn't sound right.  What I have in mind is more like 
the public/private distinction, the idea that there is an inviolable (though 
always negotiated) sphere of action with which people can inhabit.

DMB said:
I'd like to persuade you that Pirsig's distinction doesn't involve this 
question-begging problem. ... Like I said earlier today in the "Absolute 
Truth" thread, this distinction is based on empirical evidence. Beyond the 
social science stuff I mentioned, there is also a mountain of hard data in 
developmental psychology that supports this distinction. I've only seen a 
tiny fraction of this material myself, but Wilber makes great use of it in 
his work. There are lots of ways to approach the issue, but the point is 
that there is some kind of critera, some way to measure these things. They 
don't rest on eternal truths of course, and there is always room for debate 
about the meaning and validity of the data, but there is data. I mean if 
question begging is a nice way to describe what happens when two sides make 
naked assertions and unsupported claims against each other's value system, 
then I think the MOQ avoids it quite nicely.

Matt:
Data is always under description, it always comes theory-laden.  I cannot 
imagine what empirical evidence one could come up with to simply _show_ that 
the Nazi is wrong, because every fact of horrible death that we come up with 
will be disputed by the Nazi: not that the death occured, but that the death 
was _bad_.  All criteria are criteria that have to be agreed upon, and the 
differences between Nazis and Americans are too intractable to have a 
political discussion.  Question-begging isn't what happens when you make 
naked assertions, it's what happens when you reach the very bottom of a 
value system, when there's no more arguing, when you can't imagine arguing 
about what your opponent wants to argue about.  "Wait, you want to _argue_ 
about the idea that massive extermination of ethnic groups is sometimes a 
_good_ thing?"  All you can do at that point is slowly back away and reach 
for a bat.

Platt said:
I like this distinction between social morality and personal morality, also 
known as "character." The personal morality attributes of hard work, 
personal responsibility, self-discipline, individual initiative, 
craftsmanship, commitment to excellence, thrift, delayed gratification, 
honor of achievement, optimism, life long pursuit of knowledge and the like 
seem today to lack the moral weight afforded to the social morality of 
diversity, affirmative action, feminism, multiculturism, environmentalism, 
political correctness and the like -- to the long term detriment of a free 
society.

Arlo said:
See, you had a good start, and then turned it into nothing but a right-wing 
political campaign.

Matt:
Platt's list is nice, but it doesn't point in any political direction.  The 
distinction between social morality and personal morality is also nice.  I 
would call it the difference between egalitarianism and self-creation.  I 
think the problem with Platt's list is that he doesn't catch the effect of 
making the creation of a soveriegn individual sphere the root bottom of 
liberalism.  One of the things it does is it doesn't allow you any leverage 
_by that principle alone_ to criticize lists of personal attributes that 
other people might come up with.  We can have a great big conversation about 
moral virtues, but I don't think many political programs are direct 
consequences.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/