Re: MD Intellectual Art (Dynamic Morality)

From: johnny moral (
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 23:26:58 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Intellectual Art (Dynamic Morality)"

    > > We still use "more moral" the same way though, because when you say
    > > something is "more moral" you are presumably asserting that most people
    > > would agree with you about what to choose, at least once you've had a
    > > to explain your understanding of the situation, right?
    >Not at all. When I say something is more moral, I mean it actually is
    >better--as if quality is real. If you can't make this basic assumption, I
    >wonder what value you could possibly find in reading Pirsig. Without it, I
    >don't think we have enough common ground to make discussion of the MOQ

    There's still no problem, steve. Unless you are insane, or didn't
    experience a common set of static patterns with the rest of us, most of us
    would agree with you on what we feel is actually better.

    So we both see "moral" as meaning "actually better", but we seem to disagree
    about the role of culture and SQ in deciding the truth of what is actually
    better. You think it comes from 'outside' (along with such concepts as
    "Truth" and "Beauty", I suppose), I don't think there is anything 'outside',
    and better is determined by a consensus steeped in common static patterns.
    If you've got a crystal ball or something, and some way to quantify the
    good, let us see it.

    I think we can still have fruitful discussions, please don't write me off so


    Protect your PC - get VirusScan Online

    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 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 23:27:18 BST