From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 03:32:33 BST
Hello Johnny,
You keep making accusations that I've turned DQ into some kind of god. I
asked you to point out where I've done so, but all you seem capable of is
reasserting that anyone who thinks DQ is a kind of morality has created some
sort of a god. Once again, I will assert that my point of view has
absolutely nothing to do whatever position it is you're attacking. Whoever
it is you're arguing with, maybe that person would be interested in arguing
with you about it. I'm not.
JOHNNY
> Yes, it has been my attempt to deflate this self-righteous free-pass of a
> "different kind of morality" Pirsig calls DQ. I've taken everything out
of
> DQ except the power and computation of change. DQ no longer has any
> mystical ability to choose what the change will be, independent of the
> influences of SQ.
RICK
You're just making up comments to respond to Johnny. Who said that DQ
"chooses" what the change will be? I'll give you a dollar if you can show
me where I said anything even remotely resembling the position you're
arguing with.
JOHNNY
> There aren't two different goods or species of morality. You have just
> split the one morality into two in order to give yourself a free pass to
> ignore things you don't like about morality.
RICK
No I haven't Johnny. You've just simplistically taken the 'conflict' out of
'moral conflict' by pretending like the moral thing to do is always to do
what you're told. The reason morality is difficult in real life Johnny is
because sometimes it's better to follow the rules and sometimes it's not.
If it was always one or the other, there would never be any need for debate
over ethics. Wow Johnny, I really thought that after Nuremberg all
reasonable people had to acknowledge that sometimes behaving morally means
BREAKING THE RULES!!! But I guess some people still believe in always
following orders. Good luck with that.
JOHNNY
Static patterns are not parallel lines, that is your mistake.
> They are relational, hip-hopping all over the place and constantly in
> contact with other patterns.
RICK
Why do you bother with the MoQ vocabulary at all? It obviously has nothing
in common with your outlook.
JOHNNY
> This is the key, I've said it a few times but no one has commented: the
> ontology of morality is based on treating expectations as absolutes.
RICK
I think the reason no one has commented is because nobody perceives your
thought to have any real value. As Platt observed, your 'philosophy' is
nothing more than just "maintain the status quo." I could be wrong I
guess... Does anybody think Johnny's ideas about 'treating expectations as
absolutes' have any real value or offer any kind of improvement over
Pirsig's ideas?
JOHNNY
> I can't believe you dis SQ so much that you refuse to say that making
things
> better is a static pattern, is morally expected of us.
RICK
Believe it Johnny. Not only do I refuse to say it, but I think it's just
plain wrong. SQ preserves (its negative face is stagnation), DQ improves
(its negative face is degeneration).
> >RICK (from last time)
> >Just as the cultural immune system would fight off a plague of public
> >urination, it would fight off the civil-rights movement. But that
doesn't
> >mean that improvements in civil-rights are morally equivalent to
urinating
> >in the streets.
JOHNNY
> But my point is "DQ" would consider them both dymanic change. How are you
> going to explain why one is better than the other without referring to
> static morality?
RICK
Huh? Why would I want to try explaining why one is better than the other
with out referring to static morality? You seem to keep forgetting that I
am arguing that BOTH moralities are necessary to a complete explanation of
morality. You are the one who is trying to get by on 50%.
JOHNNY
> Here's a given set of two very well established static patterns: "Honor
your
> mother and father", and "Don't steal" So if a parent ever instructs their
> child to steal, then the child will have to navigate the conflict between
> static patterns. To do what is moral, he'll have to ask himself what he
> thinks most people would do in that situation, given his circumstances.
> What is expected of him? In other words, he'll compare his circumstancs
to
> OTHER static patterns he's aware of (vaguely or starkly), and figure out
> what is expected of him.
RICK
Your hypothetical begins with the premise that a child is faced with two
conflicting expectations. You then exclaim that in order to choose between
them, he should just figure out what is expected of him. Great plan! The
only problem is that not knowing what was expected of him was his problem to
begin with. What's worse is that even if we ignore the circularity of your
proposed reasoning, under your view, it wouldn't matter which choice he
wound up making. Either way, he'd be acting immorally. See why your view
is just not helpful? If there is no Dynamic Morality, then all moral
conflicts must lead to immorality no matter how they are resolved... why
even bother with morality in such a case?
> >RICK (from last time)
> > ...But ultimately, I'm just saying that I think you'll get more value
out
> >of the philosophy presented in LILA if you read it as a conflict between
> >two
> >different moral forces (sq/DQ) rather than a conflict between static
> >morality and some immoral (or amoral) Dynamic force.
JOHNNY
> The conflict you describe is "what I want versus the world".
RICK
No it is not. The conflict I am referring to is not between 'society' and
'individuals' but is rather between 'static' and 'dynamic' aspects of
reality. Sometimes the conflicts between DQ and sq can come up in the
context of society versus an individual. But that's only one setting among
an infinite variety of settings in which the conflict between DQ and sq
plays out. Sometimes the conflict arises in the context of half the world
versus the other half, sometimes in the context of a minority versus a
majority...etc.
JOHNNY
I think
> you'll get more value out of the MoQ if you respect morality and see that
it
> is all one big happy mess of static patterns that are not so much in
> 'conflict' with each other but just co-exist and do what they should till
> they shouldn't anymore.
RICK
That's just circular gibberish that explains absolutely nothing. Sorry
Johnny, I've read your post and you've offered absolutely nothing new. I
think we're going in circles and I still perceive nothing of value in your
view. Now, I think I've said all I've got to say about it and that I'm
through with this thread.
take care
rick
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 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 03:35:13 BST