[MD] Noncognitive babble

[Steven Peterson]

Hi All,

20 years after Lila, I wonder how it would be read by someone new to
Pirsig. Would the ideas seem relevent? As we get more and more
distance from the positivists, I wonder how young people today would
read Pirsig's attacks on the fact-value dichotomy. Would they wonder
just who it is Pirsig thinks he is arguing against?
Maybe this aspect of SOM that attracted most of us to the MOQ is a
straw man. If Pirsig and the other antiSomers are successful, at least
at some point it will be a straw man, right?  Someday young people
just won't even know what Pirsig was going on about. At the time I got
into Pirsig, I really felt like the notion of objectivity was being
used to push values into some realm of noncognitive babble. Is that
still happening today?

Here are some examples of the views that Pirsig attacks with regard to
the dichotomy between facts and values taken from an article on Hilary
Putnam who also made such critiques on SOM:

http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/putnam.htm

(1) No statement is both evaluative and factual.

(2) There is no logical connection between evaluative and factual statements.

(3) Factual statements are true or false independently of any value judgments.

(4) Facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond controversy.

(5) Evaluative statements are neither true nor false.


Are these dogmas ones that people still adhere to? Or have Pirsig,
Putnam, and the other critics of the fact-value dichotomy been
successful?

Best,
Steve