BACK ON TRACK, JONATHAN ATTACKS PLATT'S IVORY TOWER MORALITY AND
REALISES THAT IT IS STUPID TO TALK ABOUT MORALITY FROM ANYTHING OTHER
THAN A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE
Hi Diana, Platt and Squad,
DIANA:-
<<<
I'm not giving up, I just couldn't do it on my own and the rest of the
group seemed to have wandered off into other topics. We do seem to be
back on track now which is encouraging
>>>
We do indeed seem to be getting back to a more conventional focus on
morality, and there are still a few days to go ...
Let me now deal with Platt's post of 22nd November. I was actually
intensely irritated by it and was hoping that I wouldn't have to reply
personally (come on guys, where are you all?):-
JONATHAN:-
>> Then the "hypocrite" Richard Rigel turns up to take Lila back to her
>> home town and probable hospitalisation. Will she come out of it? We
>> can't know. But what is for sure is that Rigel stands up for his
beliefs
>> and takes responsibility, while Phaedrus slinks off free.
>
PLATT:-
>Sounds like you are morally condemning Phaedrus. But on what grounds?
>Is there a basis in the MoQ on which you can argue for the high
>quality of standing up for one's beliefs and taking responsibility?
>Likewise, on what basis does the MoQ put a guilt trip on Phaedrus for
>slinking "off free?" What "intellectual construct" do your use that
>leads you to judge Phaedrus so contemptuously?
>
Platt, what "intellectual construct" did YOU use to show unambiguously
that I supported Rigel and condemned Phaedrus? I deliberately used some
rhetorical tricks (e.g. "slink off" rather than "depart") to cast things
in a certain light. Each one of us makes his own judgement.
e.g. here's what DONNY wrote in his most excellent ZAF post of 23rd
Nov.:-
<<<<
Phaedrus certainly is an arrogant SOB. Platt and Johnathan have
been discussing the morality of Phaedrus possition at the end of LILA.
I always interpreted it that "the doll" was correct. It was a happy
ending.
Lila got what she wanted. Rigel got what he wanted. And it was wrong
(egotistical) of Phaedrus to think he knew what was best for her/them.
Pheadrus seems to intepret this as "Then why should I bother trying to
*tell them*?" So he sails away (ego deflated or brused?) and Pirsig
shuts-up and vanashis (more or less) from sight.
>>>>
PLATT:
>The reason I ask is that there is a widely held assumption in today's
>culture that caring about and helping others is highly moral. ...
Yeah right! *Today* we put people like Gandhi, Mother Theresa and
Princess Diana on pedestals, and Platt thinks they would have been
ignored in previous times...
... like Florence Nightingale, Jesus, Good King Wenceslas, Hippocrates.
I don't think so Platt. Mankind has always valued people who care to
help others.
>Rarely
>are the results of altruism examined. Nor is its narcissistic nature
>discussed. How can you possibly presume to help someone, especially
>without being asked, unless you assume they need help (i.e., inferior)
>and you can provide it? [snip]
That sounds like a great recipe for ethical behaviour! The Good
Samaritan should have simply walked by.
>In Chapter 30, Pirsig talks about "the whole cultural set...says that
>doing nothing is the same as doing something wrong" and goes on the
>explain that the MoQ supports "dhyana," a retreat into isolation and
>silence.
That is sometimes appropriate, sometime not. Imagine the Good Samaritan
going off to meditate !!!
Platt, what does an "Ivory Tower" mean to you?
[snip]
>Most of the moral sentiments expressed this month on the Squad have
>not been based on the MoQ so much as warmed over pseudo love ...
That's Platt's rhetoric for saying that basic cross-cultural human
decency derived from instinct isn't worth very much, while I call it the
highest form of morality.
[snip]
>I fully agree with Diana's opinion that we haven't really tested the
>morality of the MoQ properly because of "reversions to previously held
>opinions without any attempt to analyze the situation in terms of the
>Metaphysics of Ouality."
A long time ago, someone in the squad noted that my moral position was
basically one of "human" values, and I'd like to justify that by a MoQ
analysis of a hypothetical situation.
Let us suppose that a fleet of spacecraft arrives at planet earth
carrying a group of space refugees fleeing from their exploding planet.
Let us further suppose that these beings are intellectually and
culturally vastly superior to humankind, and they have decided that
their survival requires them to occupy planet earth and (for their own
safety) to eliminate the human species. Would it be moral for us humans
to take up whatever resources we can muster to fight them off? Is it
moral for them to destroy us in the first place? Or maybe both sides are
right and the "moral solution" is whatever outcome results from the
showdown.
I now realise that it is stupid to talk about "morality" from anything
other than the human perspective. We can't make moral judgements about
anything other than our own behaviour, because that's the only thing we
control. Intellect is nothing more than a tool for
analysing the likely outcome of alternative behaviours.
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:40 BST