Dave Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:05:17 +0100
Hi Mark
Good first words! Though just here for a short time myself it is easy to get
caught up in the dialectic thoughts and miss the board completely. Thanks for
pointing out were the end is.
You asked:
> Could you explain your reluctance to these terms?
Look at Hugos response to me and mine to Diana. My feeling is that the word
"moral" in Pirsigs work is not how we now commonly use the word. Because of
it's current use in our static values system (quite often as a club) using it
could distract from his pivotal thoughts on quality, static/dynamc. Morals do
not always equal Ethics, more often they are a static pattern of " Thou shalt
nots.." by one group or another trying to limit some other one's or groups freedom.
Hugo wrote
> "Ethics is concerned with the act and process of control ... with investigating the controllable and the uncontrollable as they appear in power and resistance".
But I predict that if MoQ get any large following it will be a central and
contentious issue. But I'm still back on the basics and haven't given that
issue a great deal of study. Just a feeling.
Dave
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST