[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Would you agree that not all cultures allow an individual to freely
> express 
> his opinion and that in this regard some cultures are better than
> others?
> 
> [Ron}
> Platt, in every post you answered you made a damn good case. Part of me
> disagrees on the grounds of the concept of superiority yet evolutionary
> Superiority is the name of the game. Somehow I can't shake the concern For
> this to be construed as justification for elitism. I as well as Anyone knows
> what it is to fight to survive. It is a fact of life. Yet something feels
> wrong about it being a metaphysic. I personally think it would be a
> confusing task to sort out Which culture is superior using Pirsigs method
> merely on the Basis of having to be immersed in a culture to accurately
> Access those MoQ characteristics as it relates to itself. Because there is
> error in judging other cultures by virtue Of our own standards of
> intellectual and social. Between you and I democracy is the best thing
> going, Not without it's warts mind you. I understand what you are saying But
> for some reason I cringe at the thought of MoQ being used As justification
> for cultural elitism, I think it's a mighty thin Line to walk without
> getting judgmental and following An ideology something close to that of the
> third reich. I see where you are coming from but I can't help thinking of
> The down side to it.
> 
> What are your thoughts in regard to this?

Hi Ron, 
First, thanks for the compliment and for asking my opinion. The words 
"elitism" and "judgmental" reflect Christ's moral injunction, "Judge not 
lest ye be judged." As one who is always on the lookout  for self-
contradictory statements I often cite this one because it is a judgment 
that says we shouldn't make judgments. So it reflects the bind you and I 
and everybody else is in, expressed nicely by Pirsig when he observed this 
about the human condition: 

"Everybody wants their children to be valedictorians, but nobody is 
supposed to be better than anybody else. A kid who comes out somewhere near 
the bottom of his class is guilt ridden, self-destructive, and he thinks, 
"It's not fair! Everybody's equal!"  (Lila, 7) 

Or, as you put it so succinctly, "Part of me disagrees on the grounds of 
the concept of superiority, yet evolutionary superiority is the name of the 
game."

The solution? Nothing neat and tidy I'm afraid. If you are guided by the 
MOQ, however, you attempt to maximize intellectual (individual) freedom 
without destroying the social foundations that make such freedom possible. 
At least that's what the MOQ suggests to me. 

Given that as launching point, I quickly think of  the adage: "My freedom 
to swing my fist stops where your chin begins."  Applying this to the 
issues you raise, I think its perfectly OK to claim superiority for 
something, but it's not OK for you to initiate physical force against 
someone else who may disagree with you. This doesn't completely solve the 
problem in cases where you are threatened with physical force and need to 
take pre-emptive action to protect yourself . But then I can't think of 
very many moral questions where the answers are cut and dried. 

To sum up, Ron, I see no way to avoid thinking that "some things are better 
than others" including cultures. What is immoral by MOQ standards is using 
biological forces that threaten physical injury to prevent others from 
freely expressing their own thoughts. That's a lower level trying to 
dominate a higher one.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Platt