[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

 Hi Alice, 

> OK, this is really scarey and I'm probably not prepared to enter at this
> time, but I am a daring soul so I'll put my toes in and see what
> develops.

Not to worry. We all started out scared but soon found that the people 
who contribute here are just like everyone else with all the foibles of 
imperfect human beings. Opinions are sometimes expressed harshly by 
accusing the other guy of being an idiot, but that's to be expected in 
an age when civility and good manners are denounced as a hangover from 
that horribly straight-laced Victorian era. Now the going custom is, 
"Let it all hang out." 

> I came to your forum through conversation with Ian of
> Psybertron Asks. In fact it was he who introduced me to "Zen and the
> Art, etc.". I have been enjoying blogging for the past year and a half
> and have been at the same time continuing my readings in such things as
> evolutionary psychology and cognitive science. I am a very amatuer
> philosophy fan. And so I ask you to be not kind, but at least a little
> indulgent because the vernacular flies not easily off of my tongue.

If you haven't read Lila yet, by all means do so. It represents 
Pirsig's latest thinking whereas his thoughts in Zen were tempered by 
New Age fads at the time it was written. For example, his cognitive 
division in Zen was classic/romantic, but in Lila it is Dynamic/static 
Quality -- an oceanic shift in his philosophic "first cut."

> "One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of
> things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future
> this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something
> better comes along."
> 
> This is interesting to me because I have been engaged in conversation
> (on the internet) with many who espouse the conservative or libertarian
> view. While I, too, find myself comfortable with the message of those
> philosophies , I always find myself asking "How do we know it works,
> when in fact it has never been tried?" I am specifically refering to
> capitalism.
> 
> I guess in the days of Rockerfeller, there was a form of laissez faire
> capitalisim, but it was very shortly thereafter quelled when people felt
> they were being taken advantage of. and a version of American socialism
> began to emerge, and then came the depression and so on and so on.

Pirsig's "provisional" explanations of things comes right out of 
philosophy of science whereby truth is never certain but always 
provisional in the sense that if new evidence is found that doesn't fit 
a theory, then the theory must be changed. Of course, one wonders if 
the claim that truth is provisional is also provisional.

As for capitalism, you're quite right that it's pure form has never 
been tried. What wonders might have arisen from millions left free to 
market the fruits of their individual intellects can only be imagined. 
But the restricted capitalism we have now is better than welfare 
socialism in any of its various forms. One need only compare the rate 
of economic growth and employment in the U.S. with other countries to 
grant the truth.     

> I also have had an argument with folks about whether the right to
> property is an inherent right as Locke said. I have said that it is only
> a right if others agree to it.

This is emblematic of the battle between conservatives and liberals 
today. If individual "rights" are dependent on a vote of the majority 
(others agreeing to it), then they are subject to change at the whim of 
the mob. By contrast, if rights are "unalienable" (right to Life, 
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) as claimed in the Declaration of 
Independence and come not from man but from man's Creator, then they 
are immutable. The question then becomes, "Under which idea would you 
rather live?"

> So while I am generally a conservative, I see holes in the ideas and
> have concluded that things are not so very black and white.

Rarely will you find 100 percent agreement on matters pertaining to 
economics, politics and other social level issues. But, be aware of 
currently popular notion that all truth is relative to the culture that 
asserts it. Science has punctured a hole in that idea by its 
universality -- it's true that water is H20 in the U.S., Siberia and 
Timbuktu. Further, those who claim nothing can be objectively 
determined to be true must answer the question, "Then how to you know 
what you say is true?" If the answer is something like, "Huh?" or a 
similar dismissive response, you're dealing with an irrational person 
who should be treated accordingly.      

The liberal view that objective truth doesn't exist leads inevitably to 
an attitude of all-embracing tolerance. When one truth is as good as 
another and the only thing you really believe in is the other guy's 
right to believe and do what she wants, then you exhibit a superior and 
enlightened attitude. It also means you have no beliefs worth 
defending. So we see appeasement towards law breakers, both here in the 
U.S. and internationally. Can anarchy or totalitarianism be far behind? 
 
 
> I hope I have not overstepped and I'm not altogether sure I have done
> this properly..

Your concern with what is proper is laudatory. Would that more had a 
sense of propriety and self-discipline today in a world where anything 
can be, and is, excused except a belief in a Creator. In any case, let 
not your heart be troubled. Your first post was just fine. I look 
forward to more.

Best,
Platt