From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 15:28:55 BST
Hi Jonathan:
> My dear Platt, when will you ever get over this obsession with the absolute
> (is this what they call absolution?;-). You know, this same obsession led
> to Plato's Good, and from there to SOM truth. In the east, it led to a
> rejection of the material world as "maya" (magic/trickery), while the
> abolute was hidden in the mystical "brahman". As I understood it, the
> Quality concept presented in ZAMM was supposed to break us away from these
> absolutist poles, and lead us back to a renewed synthesis (the MoQ).
Come, come Jonathan. If I am obsessed with the absolute are you not
obsessed with the relative? Surely you're aware that there is at least
one dedicated Platonist among scientists, Roger Penrose. As a
scientist yourself, SOM truth is your bread and butter. And, the
"Absolute" in Eastern religion is another name for God or Spirit which I
presume you do not dismiss as a figment of disturbed imaginations.
Perhaps we can agree that Pirsig presents an absolute metaphysics
wherein relativity is allowed free reign. What I mean by that is explained
by Pirsig in the Introduction to Lila's Child:
"After reading through these and many other comments I've concluded
that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ would be to
block the notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral
problem in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The image in my
mind as I wrote it was of a large football field that gave meaning to the
game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but did not decide
which team would win. That was the point of the two opposing
arguments over the death penalty described in Lila. That was the point
of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic Quality. Both are moral
arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just as two sides can
go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim constitutionality, so
two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that either the
Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole
judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of
conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of
moral rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption."
> Platt, I understand your fear of certain "anything goes" philosophies that
> appear to moralize the immoral. I suppose we could but think that the MoQ
> can be used to oppose such ideas very simply and without reference to the
> absolute.The Quality idea allows many alternative versions of the truth
> (many things go), but rejects low quality versions of the truth
> (falsehoods). That is, bullshit is bullshit and you know it from its smell!
Agree. I would simply add that the line between high quality truth and
undeniable fact is so thin as to be indistinguishable except by a attitude
of humility on the part of the proponent as expressed in Roger's oft
repeated admission, "But, I could be wrong." This I ascribe to.
Hope you'll find more time and inspiration in the future to contribute.
There are newcomers here who could benefit a lot from your response to
their questions and statements. Will flattery get me anywhere? :-)
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 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 15:30:32 BST