[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Ron,

I don't want to sound too pessimistic about our inability to free 
ourselves from our culture. We are also in a position to recreate our 
culture.

Consider this from a Princeton colleague of Rorty named Jeffrey Stout 
in Ethics After Babel:

"...tradition-bound thought is [not] necessarily uncritical. We may 
have no power to transcend our traditional inheritance completely--for 
we are finite, historically situated beings--but we do not have to rise 
above history to call assumptions in question. The attempt to stand 
outside one's age, Hagel said in a famous phrase, is like trying to 
jump over the Rhodes. You cannot do it. The danger comes when you think 
you have, for then you will be more likely than ever to set limits on 
criticism. You will view some of your assumptions as eternal 
deliverances of reason. It would be better to think of them as 
predjudices--as prejudgments [Pirsig would call such habits of thought, 
intellectual patterns of value] any one of which can in principle be 
placed in question provided most are kept in place at any given 
moment."

Now it seems Pirsig said that he needed to "leave the mythos" to bring 
back the Quality postulate which explains his insanity. He put too many 
of tradition-bound assumptions into question at once. It was necessary 
for him to do so because he was pursuing the "Ghost of Reason" itself. 
But when he returned to create a thing called "The Metaphyics of 
Quality" he was back in the mythos, fighting to call a particular set 
of tradition-bound assumptions into question while maintaining others. 
If he didn't maintain others, he would be completely incomprehensible.

Pirsig never expected the MOQ to be the final word on reality. His work 
is a contribution to an ongoing cultural process of self-creation that 
cycles from such innovation as his MOQ to criticism to revision to the 
next innovation. That the MOQ is not immune to this historical process 
does not diminish Pirsig's genius, it is just to say that Pirsig is a 
"finite, historically situated being."

Best,
Steve





On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:53 PM, X Acto wrote:

> Hello Steve,
>
> I think we mix in meaning, while I agree that what is percieved is 
> shaped
> by culture, and that Moq is not a free ticket to a gods eye view, it 
> however
> does provide a standard in which all human cultures may be understood
> and measured in relation to their values.
> Keeping in mind, that the intellectual level of a culture is defined 
> by that culture.
> its highest patterns being those that sustain social and biological 
> quality.
>
> I do not think this effects our culturally derived perception as our 
> culturally
> derived understanding.
> It informs us that our cultural values of intellect are not THE value 
> of intellect.
>
>
> Moq in this manner may be applied to any cultural context
>
> I really feel that it's most profound impact is on human values as a 
> whole
>
> which break down universally in terms of four static levels of quality.
>
>
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:52:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>> Steve,
>>   I thought the premise behind the 4 levels was not only better 
>> understanding
>> but
>> the breaking of the paralysis of cultural relativism, and relativism 
>> in general,
>> I got the feeling throughout Lila that that was the problem western 
>> society faced.
>>
>> and the arguement Pragmatism lacked
>>
>> you know
>>
>> virtue, excellence..betterness...Quality
>>
>> virtually both books are about the feelings of emptiness and 
>> detachment
>> objectivism unleashes in the form of moral relativism.
>>
>> I agree it is not about what is true, but it IS about what is better.
>>
>> beliefs are justified through use in expereince otherwise they have 
>> no value.
>>
>> what else would be discussed than what values are better than others?
>>
>> and what framework would yield those answers but MoQ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how "I think therefore I am" figures into the 
>> conversation
>> in this regard.
>
>
> Steve:
> I was referring to this bit from Lila:
> "Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived.  
> Nature tells us only what our culture predisposes us to hear.  The 
> selection of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore 
> is made on the basis of social patterns of value, or when it is not, 
> on the basis of biological patterns of value. Descartes' "I think 
> therefore I am" was a historically shattering declaration of 
> independence of the intellectual level of evolution from the social 
> level of evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a 
> seventeenth century Chinese philosopher?  If he had been, would anyone 
> in seventeenth century China have listened to him and called him a 
> brilliant thinker and recorded his name in history?  If Descartes had 
> said, "The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I 
> think, therefore I am," he would have been correct."
>
> The MOQ is not immune to this sort of historical contingency either 
> and so then is also culturally derived. This is not a dig on the MOQ. 
> Everything is culturally derived. At least the MOQ includes an 
> understanding of that fact.
>
> Twentieth century liberalism exists, therefore Pirsig thinks, therfore 
> the MOQ exists.
>
> Best,
> Steve
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>