[MD] Noncognitive babble

Sun Sep 12 05:01:14 PDT 2010

Ian,
The power of mythos.

cool observation

-Ron

----- Original Message ----
From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 6:14:06 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Noncognitive babble

Hi DMB,

Nice one " It seems quite artificial even to me. it's not really about
facts or values so much as it's about statements. I can see that it's
all very carefully thought out and exact and yet it's empty and
lifeless. I mean, I don't think that way of defeating the problem
isn't very moving. i'd even say this analytic approach is part of the
problem or a symptom of it."

Exactly, I think each younger generation is as mixed up as the
previous grey beard generation. None of us has a monopoly. Oh and btw
... "Did you know that human, humility and humble all come from a
common root meaning "dirt"? I kid you not."

Etymology is a major reason I like Pirsig. In order to avoid the
(dirty word) "evolutionary psychology" or EvoPsych, I would point out
that the MoQ is "evolutionary" and the top two levels we spend miles
of email debating are ... err ... "psychological" That dirt is the
physio-biological bottom half of the story. Doh ! How perfectly the
story fits.

Ian

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> steve said to 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?
>
>
> dmb says:
> I'd very much like to know what seems relevant to young people these days and I 
>wonder how many college freshmen could say what "positivism" or "the fact-value 
>dichotomy" means. If the stories I've heard from university professors can be 
>taken as a generalization, kids these days are shallow, complacent and 
>conservative. What is today's version of beatniks, hippies, punks or goths? 
>Isn't there supposed to be some kind of creative form of rebellion in every 
>generation? I digress. Back to the point. I'd say Pirsig is pretty clear and 
>concrete about what he's arguing against. One of the things he's working against 
>is the irrelevance of philosophy. Long before he identified with the 
>pragmatists, he said "metaphysics is good if it improves everyday life; 
>otherwise forget it."
>
> Less than one percent of college students choose philosophy as their major 
>field but the majority will take a class or two. I wonder how many poor freshman 
>sign up for philosophy 101 expecting to learn profound secrets or deep truths 
>and find arcane nonsense instead. Pragmatism was practically invented to help us 
>dispense with the fake problems and endless verbal disputes that dissuade so 
>many freshman. Supposedly, pragmatism is a method for solving human problems 
>more than philosophical problems. In fact, the parameters of radical empiricism 
>(all experience counts and whatever is beyond experience should not count) can 
>be seen as a kind of epistemological humility. It's humanism in the sense that 
>it recognizes the limited nature of our truths. James thought humanism was 
>another name for pragmatism. Some people take that whole "man is the measure" 
>idea as a form of arrogance but I think it's quite the opposite. Did you know 
>that human, humility and humble all come from a comm
>  on root meaning "dirt"? I kid you not.
>
> If you were a freshman and my aim was to get you excited enough about 
>philosophy to take at least one more class, which would be more likely to 
>enthuse them? A) Assign Descartes, Hume and Kant or B) Assign Zen and the Art? 
>Richard Rorty told Cornel West that he'd give his right arm to write like 
>William James. Ever seen Cornel West give a sermon - er um - I mean - give a 
>lecture? He's like a jazz artist of ideas. Dewey helped to found the ACLU and 
>NAACP and for decades he had an opinion on everything that mattered and people 
>wanted to know what it was. I mean, teachers should be able to show that 
>philosophy is a living, breathing thing. I wish some professionals would step up 
>with a response to the new atheists. Wouldn't that be fun to watch? I mean, 
>let's face it, we're talking about two scientists and a journalist - but I 
>digress. The point is simply that young people will not see the relevance of 
>philosophy if their introduction to it means grappling with arcane jargon in
>  order to entertain fake doubts and consider artificial problems. We can save 
>that kind of grappling for more advanced students and those headed to grad 
>school. I guess it's obvious. The first-year reading assignments have to be 
>readable by first-year students. You want to challenge but not overwhelm. The 
>pragmatists are good for that too.
>
> The fact-value dichotomy seems like such a clinical name for the issue, 
>especially when you think about the kind of thing James and Pirsig are doing. 
>Values are so central that facts are something like a subspecies of value. 
>Pirsig's objection to SOM could be boiled down to an objection to the supremacy 
>of facts (objective truths) and the denigration of values (merely subjective 
>preferences). Radical empiricists say that value judgements come first and the 
>reasons come later so that it's prioritized in some sense even 
>epistemologically. This is part of the reason they both talk about the role of 
>one's basic temperament in taking the views we take  - and that's just one of 
>the ways that different values produce different perspectives. As they paint it, 
>values are so intertwined with facts and knowledge that the distinction starts 
>to seem quite untenable and downright unrealistic.
>
> Steve said:
> 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?
>
> dmb says:
>
> They say that ideas have a life cycle. They begin as heresy, become truth, and 
>then they end on a greeting card.
>
>
> I couldn't tell you if the realm of "noncognitive babble" is still a happening 
>place these days because I don't know what that means.
>
>
> How can I put this?
>
>
> If anti-SOMers are successful - and let's say that success means philosophy is 
>taught from their critical perspective - then every philosophy student will 
>still be challenged to re-think everything. In our culture at least, there is a 
>common sense realism in everyone's basic, unphilosophical beliefs. In this 
>sense, anyone who's ever worn a band-aid is a realist, you know? These young 
>people might realize that reality is a lot more plastic and intimate than they 
>thought. And, just to go a bit too big with this, if this realization were 
>widespread it might inspire a for the art in all things and general atmosphere 
>of creativity and engagement.
>
> Also, please notice that a former problem is not the same thing as a straw man. 
>The first is one means success or progress and the second is a bogus fiction.
>
>
>
> Steve said:
>
> 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: (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?
>
>
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Well, those are philosophical dogmas that most people will never entertain, at 
>least not in those terms. It seems quite artificial even to me. it's not really 
>about facts or values so much as it's about statements. I can see that it's all 
>very carefully thought out and exact and yet it's empty and lifeless. I mean, I 
>don't think that way of defeating the problem isn't very moving. i'd even say 
>this analytic approach is part of the problem or a symptom of it.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>
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/md/archives.html