David:
--- David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
wrote:
> Jello:
>
> Just a few comments on the candidates so far. I'd
> like to suggest that many
> of the suggestions be ruled out because they are
> essentially amoral; logic,
> math, and reason. The subject/object divide, laws to
> interpet and the laws
> of schema are dubious for the same reason. I'm not
> saying these things are
> necessarily immoral or useless or anything like
> that. But if the MOQ's is to
> serve as a moral compass and the fourth level is a
> level of VALUES, then it
> seems winning description has to clearly reflect a
> moral principle.
Well, I disagree with your statement that reason is
amoral. How does reason work? In my view, the only
answer to that is DQ. How do we come up with
hypotheses? How do we know that one hypothesis is
better than another (assuming they are both
sufficient)? Why do mathematicians try to prove some
theorems and not the infinite number of other possible
theorems (and why do they have a strong feeling that a
theorem is provable before they are able to prove it)?
Why do I get annoyed at seeing a bad argument used for
something I agree with? In other words, I consider
reason to be the selecting force in quality thinking.
> Plus the
> author is explicit about it.
>
> PIRSIG...
> This soup of sentiments about logically nonexistent
> entities can be
> straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It
> says that what is meant
> by "human rights" is usually the moral code of
> intellect-vs.-society, the
> moral right of intellect to be free of social
> control. Freedom of speech;
> freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury;
> habeas corpus; government by
> consent-these "human rights" are all
> intellect-vs.-society issues.
>
> PIRSIG...
> But what the larger intellectual structure of the
> Metaphysics of Quality
> makes clear is that this political battle of science
> to free itself from
> domination by social moral codes was in fact a
> *moral* battle!
True, but it is a moral battle *on the social level*,
and the question under advisement is what decides
moral battles on the intellectual level. Reason does
so, by such things as questioning assumptions,
dislodging circular arguments, and attempting to be as
precise as possible in the use of terms. I, for one,
am not used to calling these things "moral", but I see
no difference between doing so and calling survival by
killing moral on the biological level. In addition, I
think reason is moral in the sense that we are all
improved, in some spiritual sense, by developing our
capacity to be rational.
- Scott
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:51 BST