Dave,
YOU WROTE:
"In theory we all probably agree with DMB when he states:
> we can be sure that were dealing with intellectual values only to the
extent that we're sure they
> TRANSCEND [go beyond the limits of, are separate from or beyond] social
values.
But if Richard Budd's suggestion for next month topic is any indication:
> After all, the MoQ can have no value in moral or metaphysical thought if
the thinker must always check
> with Robert M. Pirsig to know if he's correctly applying the levels..
In practice making these level distinctions, particularly at the social and
intellectual level, are
anything but SURE. If you seek worldview that is SURE, ABSOLUTELY SURE,
there are numerous
religions which will enthusiastically provide this perspective, IMHO the MoQ
cannot...."
RICK:
First of all, I don't know what religion is like in your part of the world,
but where I come from the defining characteristic of a "religious" view is
that it must be taken completely on faith... that is, the exact opposite of
being "absolutely sure". Second of all, my topic suggestion had nothing to
with "absolute certainty". My suggestion was: Without the "encyclopedia of
levels" Pirsig describes, can the MoQ have any PRACTICAL value as either a
moral system or a metaphysics? That's it really.
DAVE:
"IMHO the MoQ's power lies not in providing answers but rather in providing
a framework to ask the
questions or investigate the problems."
RICK:
Well... to me the MoQ is much like Formal Logic in the sense that it
draws
its power from its form. Logic tells us if A=B's and B=C's then A=C. We
can put anything we'd like into this "equation", even absurdities, and the
form will always be logical. For example, if I say all Giraffes are
Philosophers,
and all Philosophers are from Mars then logically--- All Giraffes are from
Mars. The conclusion is (of course) ridiculous, but only because the
premises were. This is commonly refered to as the "garbage in, garbage out
(GiGo)" characteristic of formal logic.
The MoQ also has the GiGo characteristic... for example, the form (or
framework) of the MoQ tells us that
Social patterns are always more moral than Biological ones--- and if
confronted with a moral dilemma between two patterns, we can say that the
moral choice is the pattern at a higher state of evolution (in this
case the Social pattern)... and we would be always correct. But if we
cannot distinguish between Social and
Biological patterns in "real life" (ex. which contains 'family'?) then the
framework is little more than a
nice idea.
Garbage Into the MoQ, Garbage Out of the MoQ.... If assigning
patterns to levels is simply a matter of personal choice, then ultimately so
is
the MoQ, and it is really just an elaborately veiled emotivism, and it can
have no moral force or metaphysical value.
It's all Good,
Rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST