[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Thu Aug 27 09:25:50 PDT 2009 

Nice one Steve.  The problem of asking dinosaurs what would make a good
mammal is like the pragmatic woodcutter finding the chainsaw doesn't cut as
fast as an axe because he only thinks to use the chainsaw like he uses his
axe.  He doesn't have the concept of the bigger context.
It also reminded me of a section of Royce I was just reading, in dialogue
with the Kritik:

Suppose  we choose to stop thinking of experience as casually connected.
 What then?

"You can't" say Kant "Your thought, being what it is, must follow this one
fashion forever."

Nay, we reply, how knowest that Master?  Why not may our thought get a new
fashion one day? And then what is now a necessary principle, such as 'every
event has a cause', would become unnecessary or even non-sensical.  Do we
then know apriori that our a priori principles must always remain such?  If
so, how come we by this new knowledge?




On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Ron,
>
> I'm glad you agree, since as Stout said, "The danger comes when you think
> you have [stood outside your own age], for then you will be more likely than
> ever to set limits on criticism."
>
> A Rorty turn of phrase I really like is that he sees foundationlism as an
> attempt to "lend our past practices the prestige of the eternal." Doing so
> puts undue limits on the possibility for an even better future. It's like
> asking a dinosaur what would make a good mammal. To progress, evolution of
> morals like biological evolution needs no goal in mind other than
> "betterness."
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2009, at 11:33 AM, X Acto wrote:
>
>  Hello Steve,
>>
>> I don't think thats too pessimistic rather a healthy bit of skepticism
>> regarding the matter, which, in my opinion gives it more power.
>>
>> It also flushes out the term "relativism" as mostly a pejoritive term
>> toward this sort of thinking in the context we are discussing.
>>
>> I don't feel that the idea is to escape or free ourselves but to extend
>> and expand.
>>
>> -Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:15:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
>>
>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
> 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/
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list