[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[John Carl]

Hey Dan,

> >
> > Jc:
> >
> > As RMP pointedly says:  "How can you tell the degenerates from the
> > messiahs"?  I think that question illustrates the point that not ALL
> > social deviation ends you up in an asylum.  Sometimes you end up
> > founding a religion or writing a best-seller.
>
> Dan:
> In which case you're no longer considered a deviant. In ZMM the
> narrator makes mention of recanting:
>
> "What I am is a heretic who's recanted, and thereby in everyone's eyes
> saved his soul. Everyone's eyes but one, who knows deep down inside
> that all he has saved is his skin."
>

Jc:  hmm.  So soul is a social construct but skin is a biologically
grounded being.  I like that.  what it means, to save your soul, by
everybody who uses the term is save your reputation.  I'd say Phaedrus's
reputation was certainly saved!


>
> >JC:
> > I think that looking at the levels as indiscrete, is more useful than
> > looking at them as pristine.  In fact,  it seems obvious to me that
> > every level above, is inclusive of all the levels below, but with
> > something more, a new level of patterning.
> >
> > But... that new level in no way obviates or eliminates the lower
> > patterns.  For instance, all social patterns are creations of
> > biological human beings, and in a 1st level, material world (not that
> > the whole world is material, but at least a large part of it is!)
> > Thus understanding the way the levels work together, helps us in
> > making better quality decisions about what to intellectually endorse.
> >
> > Now, it's hard to endorse, what you don't hear.  Thus most of the 4th
> > level, is a sort of individuation of choice - the individual reacting
> > to what she perceives as "the DQ move"  the move toward betterness.
> > This puts the MoQ on solid ground with pragmatism and personalism
> > both, and seems also, more importantly, "the most true to me".
> >
> > See?  I'm thinking about what seems better to ME.  And that "ME" is a
> > social composite of all my past experience,  seeking a unity that is a
> > kind of ultimate good - (as it seems to me)  Thus my person is not a
> > unique or metaphysically significant entity - it is a mere mode of
> > information that has been informed and selected by many sources,
> > including you yourself.  So you are me and he is she and we are all
> > together... right?
> >
> > But at the same time, there is that still small voice, which whispers
> > whether any idea or concept or communication is good or is not good,
> > and that occurs on an individual level, but gets resonance socially,
> > or it fades and dies.
> >
> > As best as I can see and understand it, that is the way the MoQ levels
> > help me to understand (codify) my experience.
>
> Dan:
> My problem with this is that it seems to allow everyone to codify the
> MOQ on their own terms thus nullifying any real meaning to the
> framework it offers us.


Jc:  Meaning is found in experience rather than abstractions from
experience.  The MoQ is an abstraction from experience and should not be
confused with the Quality it talks about.

The fact that there are individuals with different experiences, who find
the MoQ meaningful to them, should be praised and celebrated rather than
frowned-upon and quashed.
But nowhere would I endorse saying just any old thing that comes to mind,
in a slip-stream-of-consciousness way-waving back and forth like the tide.
but more on that later...

Dan:


> I don't see that I'm being dogmatic when I
> point out certain nuances of the MOQ. Rather, my goal is to help
> better elucidate what Robert Pirsig is saying and not my
> interpretation of it, though to a certain extent we all filter
> everything we know through our cultural lens.
>
>

Jc:  The crux of the matter, indeed.  A community of interpretation is all
anybody gets.  I admit it is a tricky dance,m at times - this floating
between static objectivity and dynamic and artistic flow -

What a shame if the MoQ should evolve into some ridiculously rigid
orthodoxy!
What a shame if it devolved into a degenerate orgy of ideas, going nowhere
in a thousand directions at once.

Sounds like a case for the middle way, to me.


> > Jc:  A bit of of conjecture on your part.  The way we are headed, it
> > might be that by the time she reaches adulthood, we'll be back to the
> > horse and buggy era.  A change which I won't bemoan, if it happens.
> > Very few people have been killed by drunk horseback riders.
>
> Dan:
> Actually no, it isn't conjecture on my part at all. Self driving cars,
> buses, semi-trucks, and even jet planes are just around the corner.
> But really my point was how hard it is to foresee such radical changes
> before they happen.
>
>
Jc:  Well, all that might come true, and the world will be speaking
Chinese, the way things are going...




>
> >JC:
> > But really Dan, the way we are living can not continue on into the
> > future much longer.  Radical changes are going to take place - whether
> > by accident and disaster or planning and forethought, is the question.
> > But projection from now is a tricky biz.
>
> Dan:
> Researchers just completed a study of some 100,000 galaxies searching
> for tell-tale signs of advanced civilizations that have moved to the
> point of being able to engineer their galaxy to suit their own
> purposes. Nothing was found. So. Either there are no such advanced
> civilizations out there, or if they are, theirs is a culture not bent
> upon subjugating their environment. Which is it? I vote the latter.
>
>
Jc:  It's a crazy thought, that we might be all alone in the cosmos...  So
far, that's all we know, tho.



> Dan:
> I guess I hold out hope. Take the recent reconciliations of the United
> States with Cuba as well as the treaty just worked out with Iran.
> These seem promising steps away from war and conflict, something we
> haven't seen much of over the past few decades.
>
>

Jc:  Repairing relations  with Cuba and Iran, while pissing off Russia so
badly that Putin is trying to get the Chinese to dump the dollar into the
toilet, doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.,

I guess it depends on your perspective and what you follow.  I've probably
got too much time on my hands...




> >
> >
> >> Dan:
> >> The MOQ states that idealism and materialism are both right in their
> >> own limited perspectives.
> >
> >
> > Jc:  That strikes me as a bit facile.  Idealism and materialism both
> > vie for metaphysical dominance equally  and neither will allow the
> > slightest bit of overlap.  If it's all information - then the
> > idealists win.
> >
> > Of course, I don't see the MoQ as successfully negotiating any sort of
> > bridge between the two. I see the MoQ as a species of Pragmatism -
> > which is in fact, a neo-Kantian, non-Hegelian, Idealism!
>
> Dan:
> Well then, you're basically throwing out half the MOQ to suit your own
> purpose.
>


Jc:  I don't see that.  "My own purpose" isn't biased toward any tangible
goal on my part.  I like philosophy and a certain amount of philosophy IS
philosophology - seeing where different philosophical ideas, fit into other
systems.

Pirsig himself says in Lila that when re-reading James, (with his own
system - The MoQ) in mind, he found fit after fit after fit.  It
dovetailed.  That's an incredibly important confession.  My reading of
Wilshire's book, weaves these threads into a tapestry of thought that
started with the interplay between the natives and the Europeans and was
codified in the philosophy of Franklin, Emmerson, James, Peirce, Dewey and
Whitehead.   Seeing this weaving, it's a beautiful thing.  I can't un-see
it, just because you say it doesn't fit.  Show me how, it doesn't fit.




>
> >JC:
> > When you say the MoQ simply dodges the whole debate, it's kind of a
> > code for RMP dodges the whole debate and that is true.  Pirsig never
> > claimed to be a premium philosophologist.  He stuck to HIS path, and
> > that was the right thing to do for him.  But that doesn't mean the
> > effort to map his path comparitively with others and point out the
> > various similarity of routes... is undermining his way.  I'm sure he'd
> > agree.
>
> Dan:
> Maybe. But neither did I say we should abandon efforts to compare the
> MOQ to other philosophies. My advice is to get the MOQ right first.
>
>
Jc:  Well, I've said it before.  I don't think the MOQ is that hard to
get.  Pirsig as a great thinker, writer and teacher presents us with a work
that fleshes out a skeleton of a metaphysics.  He then stops publishing,
and steps back and "allows" the evolution of a community of interpretation
to "get it right".  I've been part of this community, for a long long time,
and I've read Lila's Child, which fleshes out the edges of the MoQ quite
nicely.  If I don't get it by now, there's no way I ever will.  But as a
pretty bright guy, devoted to learning a work, who is also a bit lazy, I
don't think I'd have even taken this work on, if it wasn't deeply
accessible to me.

The issue is this:  The meaning of any system is constrained to the context
which surrounds it.  For instance, "christianity" has a completely
different meaning if you're in a college classroom, than it does if you're
in a muslim village.   Because the cultural expectations and definitions
differ so broadly, from person to person (especially in this digitally
fragmented age) that misunderstandings and misinterpretations occur, which
are then construed as "mistakes".



> Dan:
> I'd say pragmatism (a set of intellectual patterns) was born of social
> values. If that is what you're saying, then we agree.
>
>
Jc:  Well, this might seem heretical to you, but all intellectual patterns
are born of social values.  The old social double-bind, which a Zen master
uses to force his pupil to make an upward leap, or just a very frustrated,
very bright kid who gets hung up on an idea that puts him into conflict
with authority.  Great Ideas are  born of  great social conflict.  If
science didn't have peer review, and social competition, it would fall
apart.

> Jc:  Here is what I mean:  "further thought" is a phrase I wish to
> > focus upon, in my explanation, for what I mean by "absolute" (and what
> > I believe Peirce and Royce meant by their terms) is the understanding
> > of what underlies that "further thought".
>
> Dan:
> I would say culture underlies thought, further or otherwise.
>

Jc:  I'd say Royce would agree.  That's his "community of interpretation",
in PoCh.


Dan:
> Well, yeah. That's pretty much what I do... what we all do. Only a few
> of us are more blatant about it than others. But how does lying to
> each other bring about a transition to a higher state of
> consciousness?
>
>

Jc:  I don't know if it's possible to express yourself without lying, just
a little bit.  We lie to ourselves, more than anybody tho so, instant karma.

But I think I probably am more honest in dialogue, written dialogue like
this, than I am in any other venue.    I perceive a commonality of value,
maybe.  Or it's just something that has taken a lot of time.



Dan:
> So you're saying because you get a rise out of dmb you continue to
> push the idea of the absolute... is that right?
>
>
Jc:  No.  I really think Royce's use of the term blocked us from
understanding him sooner.  It certainly blocked James, in their
communication.
I think intellectual assessment should rise above petty ego competitions or
rivalries.  I think getting into the meat of a definition to understand
what an author means
by a term is a good thing to do, in a metaphysical discussion.  I think
allowing one's prejudice to blind one to possibilities of harmonizing
Pirsig with other great thinkers, is a shame, really and would be glad if I
could offer a convincing demonstration.

  Pirsig's own words, equate the term absolute with quality.  He says
"synonym."  It's no big leap on my part alone!







> >
> >
> >>
> >> Dan:
> >> You seem to be assuming language is a collection of intellectual
> >> patterns.
> >
> >
> > Jc:  No... I think intellectual patterns are collections (patterns) of
> > language.
>
> Dan:
> Ah. That's an interesting take on things. My objection would be that
> often times I find I'm stuck on an idea (intellectual pattern) that
> will further my writings (language). After a multitude of efforts at
> breaking through the barrier, after exhausting myriad possibilities
> yet finding no satisfactory answer, I give up.
>
> I take a break. Maybe I'll go to my day job and perform some sort of
> meaningless and menial manual labor. Maybe I'll take a run. Maybe I'll
> sit in zazen for a while. All of a sudden, the solution appears,
> seemingly out of nowhere. It isn't that I'm talking to myself... that
> eternal internal dialogue that goes on inside my head. Rather, I've
> quit talking to myself. In doing so, the ideas prowling around the
> periphery of my consciousness have an opportunity to make themselves
> known.
>
> So no, I'd have to disagree with you. Language might be (in part)
> composed of intellectual patterns, but intellectual patterns are not
> to be equated with language.
>
>
>
Jc:  What is an idea, apart from words?  Sit in zazen with that for a while
and get back to me.




>> Dan:
>> I think what's being said in the quotes you offer would make much
>> better sense framed within the hierarchy of the MOQ.
>>
>
> Jc:  Dan!  You've become a dogmatist!  You sound just like people in
> church who argue against the points I make to them, " I think what's
> being said in the quotes you offer would make much
>  better sense framed within the hierarchy of the Bible."

Dan:
> Take for example this sentence from the quote you offered:
>
> "The body not only eats, excretes, copulates, but it breathes as well,
> and this breathing is a bridging into the thinking and feeling that it
> also does."
>
> Doesn't the MOQ with its four levels offer a more expansive point of
> view? For one thing, the author is completely disregarding cultural
> influences.


Jc:  No, I think he's going a bit deeper and describing how cultural
influences are formed.  I am willing to go into this more deeply with you,
but for now I'm constrained by time.

dan:


> The jump is made directly from biological breathing to
> thinking... to intellectualizing. This is of course the common way of
> categorizing such things


Jc:  !.  I guess it depends upon which commons you frequent.  It is certain
in tune with the Buddhist view, that is for certain.



Dan:


> so I can't blame the author. But, and I say
> it again, the MOQ offers us a better hierarchy in which to frame such
> statements. I see nothing dogmatic about that.
>
>

Jc:  As any tool, it depends largely upon the user.  You can, for instance,
use the MoQ to denigrate "lower" social orders such as the Muslims (or the
Indians) with ego-centric white intellectual prowess, but I don't see
anything better about that hierarchy.  In fact, as a whole, I find
hierarchical thinking to be facile and bankrupt.  I realize that the MoQ
has been presented as hierarchical, but I believe the proper understanding
of that hierarchy has been lacking.  It's led us to an anthropocentric
stance, which cannot withstand the slightest critical inspection.






> >JC:
> > But I do basically agree with you.  It's just that as I'm reading, I'm
> > making an internal interpretation into the vocabulary of the MoQ and
> > I'm swelling up with happiness - it fits!  It all fits.  This was
> > Pirsig's reaction when he re-read James, in his more mature
> > reflections and he saw how it all dove-tailed.
>
> Dan:
> To a point, yes. But if I'm not mistaken, Robert Pirsig was reading
> James after he developed the MOQ. And I'm pretty sure he offered the
> same advice that I did... that the writings of James would make more
> sense seen through the lens of the MOQ.
>
>
Jc:  of course!  James was writing to a 19th century audience, and Pirsig,
a 20th.  Different styles completely.  And yet, a very similar message, no?

"For William James this division (subject/object)  is artificial and
stultifying. As we saw, all meaning and truth are a species of goodness,
and this is the fruitful building out of the past into the present and
future. Meaning-making and truth are essential features of being vitally
alive and centered, of fully being, and philosophy is meant to nurture and
feed us ecstatic body-minds. "

ibid:)



> >JC:
> > That's because there is a certain "perennial-ness" to the Good.  It
> > pops up, unexpectedly.  DQ is always a surprise.  Otherwise it'd be
> > just good ole SQ.
>
> Dan:
> Everything we see and know is static quality. Even the surprise of
> Dynamic Quality.
>
>

Jc:  Interesting take.  I hadn't thought of it that way.  I find I am
thinking of the DQ/SQ split, these days, more in terms of it as a
time-process.

All past is SQ.  That was what Royce meant by "Absolute".  The past is
absolute.  But the past is not all there is.  There is also the future, and
our ideas about the future can influence our present actions so as to
achieve or realize, if not our ideal, at least something "different".  What
occurs to me, is that we conceptualize all wrongly.  The past doesn't
"cause" the future, the future causes the past!

It's an amazing thought.  I have to sit with it a bit, myself.  I don't
know what "zazen" is, really, but sitting still with big ideas seems about
right to me.

Yours,

John