[MD] suspended in language

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 6 Nov 2009 at 10:17, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Platt,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:10 AM,  <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Do you consider avoiding foundationalism an absolute stance? Or is
> > there wiggle room?
> 
> Steve:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "an absolute stance." I don't think that
> there is any foundation from which to make a claim that no one will
> ever provide us with a foundation for justifying all our truth claims.
> I just note that so far no one has ever done so and the fact that we
> appear to be no closer to finding such a foundation than we were when
> philosphy was first invented suggests to me that the pursuit of a
> foundation is barking up the wrong tree.

Hi Steve,

How about pursuit of multiple foundations? For example, a foundation of 
truth you feel (I'm hungry), a foundation of truth you get from common 
sense (I'm hungry because I missed breakfast), and truth you are told 
(Feelings of hunger care caused by synapse activity in the brain.). 
Perhaps multiple foundations was what Pirsig had in mind when he used 
the metaphor of judging truths like paintings in a gallery.

> Platt:
> > Also, in your excellent exposition on relativism you mentioned
> > "success," "progress," and a "better future." What  assumption(s) do you
> > rely on to make such judgements? Are they culturally determined?
> 
> I don't think I would want to say that our judgments are culturally
> *determined*, but we are all cultually conditioned, historically
> situated human beings with no ability to step outside of this context.
> Yet we can make judgments about our own cultures and question the
> assumptions that underly even our own judgments, so we are better off
> than just having Pavlovian responses to our environment.

Agree. A nice distinction between "determined" and "conditioned." To 
question our own assumptions is for me the essence of philosophical 
inquiry. Or, as Ayn Rand famously exhorted, "Check your premises."

Steve
> I think we can be justified in thinking that we have made progress and
> justified in hoping for more progress in the future. I don't think we
> should spend any time hoping for a foundation on which to base our
> claims that have made progress that will provide knock-down arguments
> that will convionce all comers of our beliefs. I think the best we can
> do is tell our stories to justify our belief that we have made
> progress and convince others to work for the comntinuation of such
> progress.

But as I see it Pirsig has made a valiant attempt to provide a foundation 
on which one can claim "progress" -- namely, that which contributes to 
the evolution of life. Do you think he's failed in that effort? 

Platt
> > Finally, do you agree with Pirsig's assertion: "Cultures can be graded
> > and judged morally according to their contribution to the evolution of
> > life." (Lila, 24)
> 

Steve
> Yes.

Maybe Pirsig's metaphysics is foundational after all? At least its value 
as a "story" seems exceptionally reliable and fruitful. 

But I could be wrong -- a foundational belief true for all people at all 
times, now and forever. :-)

Best,
Platt