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

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:12 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan!
>
> the busy man.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> > Jc:
>> > 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:  No.  But maybe you could :)  I think it was a comment in Lila's
> Child.  Too bad Platt's gone.  He always used to chime in with the correct
> attribution.  I rely on my aging memory, but if it's in there, I take it as
> a sign of significance, and its in there.

Dan:
I know there is a line in Lila about living beings reacting to Dynamic
Quality, but that doesn't translate into the individual.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Jc:  Well, intellectual evolution different because ideas "make jumps", on
> an individual basis.  I think for an idea to take off, it has to resonate
> with a lot of different individual basis's.  es.  But its still a *personal*,
> insight that connects a concept to significant attachment.  And thus always
> an individual assent, in order for intellectual patterns to evolve.

Dan:
None of us exist in a vacuum. These so-called personal insights arise
from the culture in which we're submerged.

>JC:
> An ongoing topic of interest, I'm sure.

Dan:
Perhaps.

>
>
>
>
>
>> 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:  I don't think individual competition is a good analogy for evolution.
> That's for sure.  Co-Evolution, is a better explanation of what goes on at
> the biological level.  Everything that lives, serves some life, in some
> way.  The more life you have, the more life you have.  the organic matrix
> is illimitable and fascinating and humanistic science wants to cut it all
> up into manageable bits, but it doesn't work very well at the ultimate
> levels.  Makes many ontological errors, as any MoQist
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4> is aware.

Dan:
Science is in the business of defining our representation of reality.
You can't define reality in its entirety. It's too overwhelming. You
can only take bits and pieces at a time

>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  The individual vs. the community is always an important and ongoing
> creative conflict.  You can't have a good community without good
> individuals and you can't have good individuals without good community.
> The way intellectual evolution fits into all this, is that it seems to
> attach to the individual's efforts to solve a social conflict - which
> creates the need for new formulations of ideas.     Which boils down to...
> respect your degenerates?

Dan:
The individual is a high quality idea, just like subjects and objects.
But I think the MOQ would say that's all it is.

>JC:
> May be.  I think in a video of a speech by Hilary Putnam, he said something
> very much like that.  The importance of heeding the minority complaint, or
> something along those lines.

Dan:
Oh no... it was James T. Kirk. Remember? As he lay dying Spock told
him that, logically, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the
one. But Jim showed Spock that, sometimes, illogical as it may sound,
the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

>
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  I think we treat certain concepts *as* absolute.  That it's more
> pragmatic to consider truth as an absolute, rather than something
> relative.  As Royce put it:
>
> "For in case I say to you: 'The sole ground for my assertions is this, that
> I please to make them,' — well, at once I am defining exactly the attitude
> which we all alike regard as the  attitude of one who chooses *not* to tell
> the truth.
>
> And if, hereupon, I offer a theory of truth upon generalizing such an
> assertion, — well, I am defining as truth-telling precisely that well-known
> practical attitude which is the contradictory of the truth-telling
> attitude. The contrast is not one between intellectualism and pragmatism.
> It is the  contrast between two well-known attitudes of will, — the will
> that is loyal to truth as an universal ideal, and the will that is
> concerned with its own passing caprices."

Dan:
I think we do ourselves a disservice by clinging to one or the other.
Pragmatically, there's got to be some middle ground that falls
somewhere between the absolute and relativism. Or perhaps we can meld
the two together and come up with more than the sum of the whole.

>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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:  No, not really.  The fact that observation has a creative relation to
> matter, confirms idealism rather than not.  But what Royce was getting at
> was absolutizing truth from within a given system.  I think what most
> people hear when they hear the term is some sort of absolute that is
> outside of any system and Royce didn't preach that.  His fictional ontology
> makes this point clearly.

Dan:
In the MOQ, the idea of matter comes before matter. But the idea that
matter comes first is a high quality idea. The MOQ marries idealism
and materialism. They are both right in their own limited fashion.

As I understand it, and to put it simply, the uncertainty principle
deals with fundamental limits in mathematics. Therefore, to use
mathematics to demonstrate absolute truth is impossible.

>
>
>
>> >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?
>>
>>
> Jc:
>
> That's a tricky question.  The evolution of industrial society, is this a
> good thing?  It's a mixed bag.  We've got lots of great stuff - this
> computer which enables me to communicate with people a thousand miles
> away... that's good.  The eroding of local community values, the alienation
> and angst of modern society... maybe it was all a good and necessary
> development to get us here, but I think we need to go in a different
> direction for a while.  It was good then, but it's the wrong thing now.  We
> need new ways of thinking, imho.

Dan:
Well, yes. That's one reason why conforming to some sort of absolute
seems outdated. I could of course be wrong but I thought that was a
big part of the MOQ, to show people the fallacy of absolute thinking,
like subjects and objects being all there is.

>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  Where it falls down is at the intellectual level.  Up to then, it
> works fine.  So I'd say it has high pragmatic value for society, but not
> for intellectual evolution and without intellectual evolution, human
> society is doomed to exemplify the evolutionary patterns of the ants or the
> bees.

Dan:
Disagree. Ants and bees are purely biological. They may seem to
represent some sort of social structure, but they do not value social
patterns like human beings. We simply overlay our own attitude on them
and say it is so.

>
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>>
> Jc:  I think Royce has helped me see the importance of interpretation.
> Other people have helped me see this too, but from the negative end - when
> you can't see the need for interpreting, you are stuck with dogmatism.

Dan:
It depends upon the circumstances. That I interpret the MOQ a little
differently than you doesn't necessarily mean I'm being dogmatic about
it. We are each on a journey and some are farther along than others.

JC:
> That is the path to the ants and the bees.

Dan:
Again, I disagree. To equate ants and bees with social patterns is a
mistake that leads to confusion. They operate on the biological level.

>
>
>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
> Jc:  A good question, as long as its asked sincerely rather than
> rhetorically.  Philosophy could be said to be the study of our culture and
> its assumptions - with a special emphasis upon clarifying concepts.

Dan:
Speaking of Platt, I remember him saying how the eye cannot see
itself. Philosophy isn't so much a study of culture as it is the
regurgitation of dead white men's ideas. Unless of course a person
actually has something to say that is original and new. Unlikely, but
possible.

>
> Thanks for clarifying yours, Dan.

You're welcome, John, and thank you too,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com