Struan,
I just wanted to personally thank you for being a part of the MOQ
discussion group. (I was just downstairs thinking of determinism, the
uncertainty principle, and perceived random Vs. true random.) For providing
an opposing viewpoint, all members of the MOQ should thank you for inserting
the dynamic, analytical, "fuck you" element to the discussion. When you
have a group of people who all agree, the philosophical inquiry stagnates
into doctrine and loses its value as an intellectual stimulant.
It is interesting that you make the point that Pirsig's reasoning is
really his emotional reactions to established philosophical doctrine. It is
equally interesting that he, or anyone else would attempt to defend against
this position considering that one of his main ideas is the importance of
the inclusion of subjectivity in the quest for truth.
Without question one of the main issues at stake is the defining of the
"philosophical high ground" or as I like to say, "What is the Philosophy of
Philosophy?" It has been a point in Pirsig's work to show that logic(truth,
dialectic, Aristotle, analysis) isn't the end all be all of philosophical
discourse. Why then, would an author who takes this stance worry about
whether his arguments are logically consistent? That seems to me to be
conceding the point to the Aristotelian.
I wish I could answer your questions more promptly. I, unlike some, take
them very seriously and research the validity of the objections before I
rapid fire insults, contradictions, and strawmen back towards the
opposition. I have come to the conclusion that you are correct about the
logical inconsistencies within Lila, however, I do not believe that these
necessarily are a mistake by the author. They become a mistake to me when he
attempts to claim that they are not logical inconsistencies. They also
become a mistake when he claims that his MOQ can resolve all moral questions
absolutely by providing the rationale for a specific set of actions to be
taken when confronted with any moral dilemma. This is absolutely absurd
within the context of Mahayana Buddhism and its dependence upon the
perception of the Dharma to lead the true self forward. It is also
absolutely absurd to assume that any ethical system can provide specific
guidelines for all people at all times. Change is the way of the universe
and what works today will probably not work in ten thousand years. And of
course, I reserve the right to take back any of the above statements at any
time should new knowledge be brought to light by you or any others.
Again, thank you so very much. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that I
have not dwelt upon often. It has suddenly become very interesting.
-dave
David Prince
Systems Analyst
www.NeoNome.com -The New, Free, Peer-to-Peer Internet!
Download the free client, and register your free name today!
http://www.neonome.com/products/neonomeclient.zip
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:58 BST