[MD] Reason, Tradition

[david buchanan]

Matt and traditional rationalists:

dmb said to Matt:
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 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 replied:
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.

dmb says:
Now it occurs to me that we've had very different appraoches to this issue. 
I mean, after reading Rorty's autobiographical essay it seems pretty clear 
that you've been talking about the impossibility of persuading such unlikely 
creatures as Nazi philosophers, about the impossibility of coming up with an 
iron-clad rational case against his value system. And then even if you could 
construct such a gem, the Nazi could just tell you that he prefers blood and 
soil over rationality and philosophy. Sure. We agree. There's no way to 
defeat fascism with philosophy. That would be a case of using words where 
guns are needed. Big guns. So, you're sort of denying the possibility of 
doing what Rorty wanted to do when he was young and idealistic. I have some 
sympathy for his project and I can see how it failed, but I'm simply not 
saying that Nazis will be defeated by asserting Pirsig social/intellectual 
distinction at them. I'm not saying that we can prove his wrongness to him 
or anything like that. I'm just saying that Pirsig's distinction explains 
WHY Rorty's project failed. It explains WHY the Nazis are not ever going to 
be persuaded by anyone's philosophy.

The picture we get from the field of developmental psychology provides data 
about the various levels of cognitive function and how this increasing 
capacity correlates to the various kinds of worldviews. This data doesn't 
validate or confirm any particular ideology as correct or anything like 
that. As you're fond of pointing out, there is no objective standard against 
which we can compare these stages of consciousness. All we can do is compare 
one stage to another. And this is where we can use real labratory data to 
back up the assertion that the later stages of development, consciousness is 
"bigger" and therefore "better", if you will. The data shows that, normally, 
we have gained broader and broader perspectives in the course of human 
evolutionary history and that this same process is basically recapitulated 
in each individual's unfolding too. As you've been fond of pointing out 
lately, a person is pretty much defined by his or her values. You ARE what 
you think. Its not like we are all equally rational beings who go into the 
ideology store to pull ideas down off the shelf and then read all the labels 
carefully before deciding what we believe. It only seems like that, if Ken 
Wilber is correct, because most Americans develop their mental capacities up 
until they are about 20 and then they sort of stop growing. I suppose that's 
because conventional rationality is all you need to keep a house, a spouse 
and a job. Plus you don't hear too many people talking about trans-rational 
higher functions or the worldviews that become available at those levels. 
This same data also shows how the lower, ancient capacities are still with 
us and how they pop up in various reactionary ideologies - like fascism. And 
its not just a matter of intellectual body-building or the lack thereof, but 
there is also the sad reality of mental health, emotional trauma, poverty 
and all sorts of things that can warp, interfere or arrest this development.

I mean, I think its way more than just a matter of speaking different 
languages or being involved with different vocabularies. I think those are 
just the symptoms of the various levels of development and such. There are 
other, less spectacular forms of disagreement within each worldview, of 
course, but if it sometimes seems like two sides of the debate inhabit 
different realities, its only because they do. And I think its no accident 
that Wilber spends a lot of time discussing the difference between a 
mythical worldview and a rational worldview. This is basically the line 
between the social and intellectual levels and this is basically the line 
betweeen neo-Victorian fascism and liberal democracy too. And you might be 
flattered to learn that postmodernism, while still at the intellectual 
level, is an advance over conventional rationality. It more or less takes in 
multiple perspectives all at once, in a wider view.

I'd also like to point out that fascism is one thing and genocide is 
another. Fascism has some basic features even though it takes on a different 
shape depending on where and when it occurs. We tend to think of it as a 
German speaking genocidal creature, but that is purely incidental to one 
particular case. If you want to see what it looks like to try to persuade a 
non-genocidal, non-German speaking, contemporary American version of 
Fascism, just look at the reactionaries in this forum...

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.

dmb says:
I have all kinds of problems with this, but what I'd like you to notice is 
all the stuff that Platt is opposed to here. He's against everything that 
takes a broad perspective. He sees the isms of a higher more inclusive 
morality as a threat to old-fashioned moral virtues. I'm not saying that old 
fashioned values are stupid or that wider views that include a multitude of 
perspectives are beyond reproach, but seeing these intellectual values as a 
threat to traditional morality pretty much defines fascism, fundamentalism 
and the other reactionary movements in recent history....

Pirsig as SA quoted him:
"Phaedrus thougt that no other historical orpolitical analysis explains the 
enormity of these forces as clearly as does the Metaphysics of Quality. The 
gigantic power of socialism and fascism, which have overwhelmed this 
century, is explained by a conflict of levels of evolution. This conflict 
explains THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND HITLER not as an insane search for power 
but as an all-consuming glorification of social authority and hatred of 
intellectualism. HIS anti-Semitism was fueled by anti-intellectualism.  HIS 
hatred of communists was fueled by anti-intellectualism.  HIS exaltation of 
the
German volk was fueled by it.  HIS fanatic persecution of any kind of 
intellectual freedom was driven by it."

dmb says:
When you look at it this way, its pretty easy to see WHY a Nazi will never 
be persuaded by making an intellectual case. He'll never be defeated by 
philosophy because that's very much what a reactionary is reacting to. 
Intellect is the object of his hate. Haven't you noticed how much Platt 
hates intellectuals and intellectual principles? Haven't you noticed how 
much the fundamentalists hate science? Haven't you noticed the sae kind of 
hostility displayed by the current administration? For all the variations 
among the reactionary movements, this is a common theme. Its not that 
fascist are stupid or fail to understand the value of a rocket scientist, 
its just that intellectual values and principles are going to be under 
attack whenever they are seen as a threat to the social level values, as 
opposed to this or that tradition.

I mean, if a Nazi could be persuaded by facts and logic or by a wider 
perspective, then they wouldn't be a Nazi in the first place. We're 
basically talking about people who are animated by myths and who hate 
anything that undermines their myth. And I think recent history has been so 
darn deadly because intellect really does demand that we let go of certain 
mythical beliefs and claims. Or rather, it offers a wider perspective so 
that myths are understood in a larger context. This forces them to give up 
claims about exclusivity. It no longer allows the kind of narrow 
perspectives, for example, that would lead a person to oppose more inclusive 
perspectives. I mean, what sort of value system does a person have to have 
to be OPPOSED to diversity, affirmative action, feminism, multiculturalism, 
enviromentalism, and political correctness? I have no hope of persuading 
such a person of anything. This guy basically lives in a different reality. 
His heros are my villians and vice versa.

But maybe you see what I'm talking about.

dmb

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