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

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:07 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Dan,
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Dan:
>> If you want to break up the question into two parts, great. Let's
>> consider it from the social vs intellectual levels. But to conflate
>> the individual with the intellect is a mistake, at least according to
>> the MOQ. We as individuals are made up of all four levels, not only
>> intellect.
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  I'm glad you pointed this out.  It's been the subject of some thought
> and I'd appreciate your input.
>
> The way Pirsig said it was, I believe, that individuals react to DQ where
> committees, don't.

Dan:
That could be but I don't recall him saying that. Could you provide a quote?

JC:
> evolutionary jumps are made at the individual level
> first, one person at a time.

Dan:
If I understand evolution, it does not occur "at the individual
level." Rather, it occurs across generations. An example: birds that
live near highways are evolving shorter wingspans as time goes by.
Why? Because those with longer wingspans are being hit by cars since
it takes them longer to become airborne, thus they don't survive to
pass on those specific genetic properties. See? It isn't that
individual birds are somehow evolving shorter wingspans, but the
species.

JC:
> If so, then the individual vs social
> conflict, is often also, an intellectual vs. social conflict, no?  So I
> agree  you can't completely conflate the intellect-individual, but you can
> relate them.

Dan:
"Whatever the personality traits were that made him such a rebel from
the tribe around him, this man was no "misfit." He was an integral
part of Zuni culture. The whole tribe was in a state of evolution that
had emerged many centuries ago from cliff-dwelling isolation. Now it
was entering a state of cooperation with the whites and submission to
white laws. He was an active catalytic agent in that tribe's social
evolution, and his personal conflicts were a part of that tribe's
cultural growth." [Lila]

Note: the whole tribe was in a state of evolution. The individual
acted as a catalytic agent, sure, but without the right time and place
the brujo would have just been a window peeping drunk with really long
thumbs.



>
> Dan:
>
>
>
>> Now, to the many different answers... sure, that's quite possible. Yet
>> you seem to be suggesting all answers are somehow equal. I disagree.
>>
>
>
> Jc:  Call it, scientific objectivity, used as a tool.  All answers are not
> equal, but if we treat them equally at the start, then hopefully we will
> have a "more objective" answer.

Dan:
But that isn't how science works. All ideas are not treated equally. A
hypothesis is proposed and then falsified. Most ideas are not even
considered, otherwise science wouldn't work at all.

.
>
>
> Dan:
>
>
>> Those so-called common
>> myths are debunked with regularity. Nothing is sacred.
>
>
>
> Jc:  I see that as problematic.  "Nothing is sacred" comes down to the
> Nihilism that Baggini describes!  It doesn't have to, maybe, but it does in
> the way it actually works out.  Where the rubber meets the road, so to
> speak.

Dan:
So you're saying we have to hold onto some sort of absolute? Or
believe in nothing? Isn't there some middle ground in between those
two extremes?

>
>
> Dan:
>
> Now, as far as throwing out the old and offering nothing new... isn't
>> offering up something new exactly  what we are actively engaged in
>> here at moq.org? I always thought so. The problem arises when we
>> refuse to let go of that which we've grown so fond of... our
>> overriding belief system that grounds us in reality. The closer we
>> come to jumping over the edge, the more tightly we tend to hold on.
>>
>>
> Jc:  I can't see jumpoing off into nothingness, as any sort of attraction.
> Old ways wear out, and need to be dropped.  But I can only let go of the
> old if I see a better alternative to latch onto.  Knowing that the new
> betterness is also a latch that will some day get old, is important.   But
> all we can do here an now is take one step at a time - and climb, rather
> than jump off.

Dan:
I joined this group way back in the stone age. 1998 or there about. I
like to believe that my thinking has evolved over the years, not as an
individual, but as part of a group. I could never have made these
leaps without the input of others too numerous to mention. Yet during
all those years I never once thought we were jumping into nothingness.
Granted, sometimes we wander away from the MOQ but we always come back
to it in the end.

>
>
>
>
>
>> >JC:
>> > So I ask again, is it pragmatic to mythologize an absolute?  Absolute,
>> not
>> > in the mathematical sense of logically pristine but in the manner of a
>> > rhetorical question - searching for intersubjective agreement that we
>> > attain when we deem something "objectively true".  Marx famously quoted
>> > religion as the opiate of the masses. But so what?   Evidently, people
>> need
>> > their drugs, in order to cope with the madness of 21st century life.  If
>> > you think its wise to deprive them, explain why.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I just happened to read an article about the Duggars and their problem
>> with son Josh. Seems the boy was overly fond of his sisters. Naughty
>> little bugger. Gee. Wonder where he got that from, dad? These people
>> hide behind their religion like it's a shield. And this isn't some
>> isolated incident. It occurs with regularity among the so-called
>> religious communities. But hey, those poor people need their drug so
>> it's okay. Is that what you really mean to say, John?
>>
>>
> Jc:  Basically that.  The coinciding of religion and popular entertainment
> is a two-headed beast that nothing can resist.  And as to the hidden
> degeneracy of the beast, you ain't telling me nothing.  I grew up in a
> religious community (albeit as a sort of outsider)  I'm a first hand
> witness to the evil that dogmatic attachment does to men's souls.  I
> shudder.   But I'm, like Royce, fascinated by the spirit of community and
> you have to hang around something if you want to study it.

Dan:
I mentioned the Duggars only in passing. Haven't had a television
since forever and all I know of them is what I see reported on
websites and news media. What I do study is story building, and that
is precisely why I came across the Duggars in the first place. Not
because of any sense of spirit of community (which in my opinion is
sorely lacking in any member of that unfortunate family) but on
account of the weirdness surrounding them.

>
>> Jc:  It's a convenient epithet for person uncomfortable with mountain
>> > climbing.
>>
>> Dan:
>> There is an old metaphysical question floating around that asks: If a
>> tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?
>> Most philosophical answers argue either yes or no. The MOQ asks: what
>> tree? How can imaginary trees fall in imaginary forests or in fact do
>> anything at all?
>
>
>
> Jc:  The conceptual scheme implies an actual tree, in an actual forest,
> with a non-actual witness.  It raises the whole question of "actuality" in
> a way that ties SOMist  up in knots.  That's what it was made for.

Dan:
What tree? And in what actual forest? Specify. And if you do that,
then of course the thought experiment is meaningless. That is how
pragmatism sorts the empirical from the imaginary.

>
>
>Dan:
>> I think that's where pragmatism comes into play. And
>> I am pretty sure that's what David is talking about when he states
>> that pragmatism is meant to distinguish real questions from imaginary
>> ones.
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  Distinguishing what is real from what is imaginary is a bit of a
> sticky wicket, that dmb thinks he can dodge by not answering.  In other
> words, taking the Jamesian route.  But philosophy deals with conceptual
> schemes that have "reality" even though they are simply ideas and words.
> In other words, the MoQ addresses the fact that intellectual patterns are
> just as real in their realms, as rocks are in theirs.  So how can dmb
> possibly accuse any philosophical question as being unreal?
>
> I don't know, but he does.  He's magic, he is.

Dan:
Pass.

>
>
>> Dan:
>> In my opinion, most of the anti-scientific vs scientific debates
>> centering around evolution, global warming, religion, and so forth,
>> arise not because people are stupid, but because they've been
>> indoctrinated into believing in the myth of the absolute.
>
>
>
> Jc:  Hm.. yes, well... I've been reading a bit more.  It's a tricky term
> "absolute".  what you mean by it is probably a long way from what I've been
> reading in Royce.
>
> From what I see, for the most part, Royce agrees with you there.  And he
> goes along for a while with what he calls Instrumentalism.  But he stops at
> the extreme view which says there is no absolute.  He uses logic and math
> to demonstrate the existence of absolute truths in the sense that "within
> the given system" equations can be absolutely true.  And this
> "absoluteness" then, demonstrates the possibility and experience of what we
> mean by the term.

Dan:
I'm not sure, but doesn't that run counter to the uncertainty principle?

>JC:
>
>  People on a mass social scale, have a tendency to absolutize.  This is
> because absolutization is extremely expedient.  Absolutization is the
> enforcement of the standard upon all.  Absolutization is the rule of
> conformity to the social needs of economically significant industrialism.
> That's how we get large populations all on the same page - in a form of
> inculcating of centrally-defined values.  The religious-industrial complex
> in an ongoing conflict with pluralism and hedonism.

Dan:
No argument here. But is this a good thing?

>
> Dan:
>
> It's
>> especially pervasive in Western culture. Much of what Robert Pirsig
>> says about subject/object metaphysics falls into that category.
>> Subjects and objects are all there is. Absolute. Period.
>>
>> It works well.
>
>
>
> Jc:  Yes indeed.  Exactly my point.  Pragmatic then?

Dan:
Subject/object thinking is a high quality intellectual pattern. Does
it have pragmatic value? No, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing the
MOQ, would we?

>
>
> Dan:
>
>
>> The English language is grounded in that myth, as is
>> our court of laws, our educational system, just about everything we
>> think, see, hear, and feel relates to the absolute-ness of objective
>> agreement.  And you are right, John. To try and argue one's way out of
>> that box is virtually impossible. There is always someone who can come
>> along and use our words against us... just like you are doing here.
>> But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and surrender.
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  Well, I'd rather think we are using our words together, in seeking a
> common goal of better communication about betterness.  Some of that is
> going to be analytic and critical, sure.  But I don't know that it's
> "against".  And which "us" are you referring to, white man?

Dan:
Those of us who subscribe to the MOQ and seek to better understand its
implications. It is easy to demean the process by introducing terms
not comporting to the ideas underlying the MOQ. I see it happen all
the time. There are then two choices: either go all the way back to
the beginning and and start over, or simply give up. I prefer the
former to the latter but I understand the frustration too.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > dmb:
>> >
>> > For James, we can decide what to believe based on our passions, our
>> >> feelings, but only in very special circumstances, when a decision must
>> be
>> >> made but cannot be decided on the basis of evidence. This ethical
>> dimension
>> >> of belief is almost universally recognized; math and logic guys like
>> >> Bertrand Russell agree with Buddha and the Dali Lama that it is
>> unethical
>> >> or even taboo to believe without evidence.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And that's why it totally matters whether there is any absolute truth or
>> >> not, why we can not just believe it because we have a thirst and wish it
>> >> were true.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jc:  But the thirst and wish themselves, are what we experience - are the
>> > absolute that we hold in common that creates our conceptual schemes.
>> Sure,
>> > intuition and passion and feeling all go into that.
>>
>> Dan:
>> The thirst and the wish for the absolute are force fed to us from the
>> time we're born. Experience goes beyond that.
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  Well, that's not absolutely true.  For instance I had very
> free-thinking parents who basically followed their bliss and let me do the
> same.  I don't recommend it as the perfect parenting style, but oh well,
> we're all different.  I certainly had no idea about any absolute imposed
> upon me.  I was exposed to what  different religions had to say about the
> subject, but I came to the conclusion that if there is any absolute then
> it's this - choice.  If it wasn't for the ability to choose, there would be
> no reason or rationality or language or anything to talk about.  So choice
> is absolute and it makes good pragmatic sense to absolutize choice and call
> it "Quality"  Otherwise I guess I wouldn't even be here.

Dan:
Your parents had little to do with the cultural assimilation you
experienced for they too were enmeshed within it. Same with all of us.
We are submerged in culture. And then we ask: what culture?

>
>
> Dan:
>> Oh come on, John. Let's go have a few and see if we can't pick us up
>> some blonde bimbos.
>>
>>
> prefer redheads, myself.  I am a picky man, when it comes to my women and
> my metaphysics.

Yeah but we're talking loose women here... can't be too choosy.

>
> I'm fairly plebian on my liquor, tho.

There we go. Now we're talking.

Thanks, John

Dan

http://www.danglover.com