Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

Date: Thu Dec 02 2004 - 07:08:54 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    Greetings, Chin--

    Welcome to the morality debate.

    Ham says:
    > But self-sufficiency, like "everything is Quality", is a pragmatic axiom
    > without an underlying metaphysical rationale. I see both Ayn Rand and RMP
    > as philosophically deficient in this regard.

    Chin comments:
    > If you don't mind my butting in, try replacing 'Quality' with God, and see
    if "everything is Quality" then makes sense to
    > you then.

    I've been through this exercise before, Chin, on another website forum. I'm
    not a theist but I have no aversion to the term "supernatural"; in fact, I
    don't see how metaphysics (literally, "beyond physical") can avoid it.
    However, Pirsig and his followers refuse to give credence to the concept of
    a transcendent source because it smacks of theism. As I've noted several
    times in this forum, the MoQ has no formal thesis, and the best definition
    for Quality the author has come up with is "Some things are better than
    others." Does that suffice as a morality system for you?

    May I suggest that you review my thesis on Essence -- -- and then come back with your comments or questions.
    Although I developed my Philosophy of Essence independently, you'll see that
    I've made extensive use of Pirsig's 1995 paper on "Subjects, Objects, Data
    and Values", which is as close to a metaphysical thesis as you'll find by
    this author.

    I'll be interested to see how you compare the two philosophies.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 07:09:55 GMT