From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:06:50 GMT
Hi Marsha, All:
Marsha writes:
> But in the end, it will be
> my gut, not words that will determine the next step.
And:
> Deep in my bones I know there is no answer, there never was a answer and
> there never will be an answer.
It appears that you rely on your gut and your bones to tell you what's
true and what's right. In other words, your feelings guide your beliefs.
Pirsig makes it clear that feelings reside in and emerge from the
biological level, not the social or intellectual levels. "In the MOQ
feeling corresponds to biological quality." (Copleston notation).
In Lila, Pirsig says feelings perceive quality. "There was a something
wrong, something wrong, something wrong feeling like a buzzer in the back
of his mind. It wasn't just his imagination. It was real. It was a primary
perception of negative quality." (Lila, 20)
In his SODV paper, Pirsig talks about our "sense of value, of liking and
disliking" as a "primary sense." This sense seems to be a gut feeling more
than anything else.
Further, if one agrees with Pirsig's determination of truth as being a
matter of personal taste, like choosing paintings in an art gallery, then
one's feelings rule.
Contrast this with statement in Chap. 8 of Lila: "The tests of truth are
logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of
explanation." No mention of feelings here.
And, at the root of the MOQ he proposes a system of rational moral
guidelines, as opposed to a morality based on feelings: "But what's not so
obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is
absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient. This
is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to some
doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all cultures.
It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a moral pattern of
reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of
reason." (Lila, 13)
So what is it to be? Truth and morality based on experience and reason,
i.e., what is commonly thought of as comprising the intellectual level, or
truth and morality founded on personal feelings of liking and not liking
that bubble up from the biological level? Or, is some combination
workable?
I look to the group for answers. The nihilistic answer, that existence is
senseless and useless, doesn't "feel right" to me.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:05:20 GMT