> Hamish,
> I am suprised that your attitude is so anti-intellectual
Chto??????
I skazhitye pozhalsta...??????????
> that you labeled my
> inquiry into (what should be) a very basic
> area of the MoQ as a "bash"... (have I touched a nerve?). Like almost
> everyone else on this forum, I seek only to better understand and help
> develop the Metaphysics of Quality; not to destroy it
I'm sorry, I was in a rush. 'Bash' is not intenteded to be a derogative comment
on what you said. I was trying to state that this is a good humoured analysis
into MoQ. I regret that you felt offense - but this was unintended on my part
[originally this read *mart* but I felt a need to correct it :-)]
> YOU WROTE:
*ouch*
> RICK:
> > As I understand it, "Emotivism" is a position which holds that in
> times of moral
[omission for sake of brevity if not clarity]
> certain codes at various levels. >
> HAMISH:
> > I don't think that this is according to the MoQ. 'The right thing' is
> DQ..."
>
> RICK:
>
> Huh??? LILA was written partially in response to the reaction of the
> "Richard Rigel"s of the world who felt that ZMM was ethically relativistic.
> If 'whatever I feel is the right thing' is DQ (as you seem to be saying)
> and DQ is the most moral 'thing' there is, then whatever I feel is the right
> thing is the most moral thing there is.... Maybe you'd like to rethink this
> one.
DQ *is* the right thing.
*whatever* is exactly what DQ argues against.
I agree with the need to argue a statement against SOM that can make sense to
the SOMists [regretably these are perhaps the least of our "enemies"]
Maybe you would like to rethink ... :-) ?
> >
> > RICK:
> > Pirsig claims that the MoQ's various codes and levels give us the
> ability to deduce moral issues with greater precision than before.
> >
> HAMISH:
> Yes. Pirsig is arguing that *his* MoQ describes experience better than SOM.
>
> RICK:
> No, this is Pirsig arguing that *his* MoQ interprets Moral issues more
> clearly than SOM.
Morality is experience - I think Pirsig would agree. It is a judgment for
*better*. If you wish to dissociate morality from observation, I'm afraid that
this is your choice, not mine.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
> HAMISH:
[I think we can discount an enormous amount of **** on my part... HTM]
>
> RICK:
> It seems very strange to me that you believe that the relevance of "family"
> to the Inorganic is so obvious and yet you're not sure of it's relevance to
> the Social level.... Were you, by any chance, raised in an orphanage?
Er, Rick. This actual point was that family & inorganic [my notation] = 0 in my
opinion. 0 being the common cypher for zero = nada = niente = null. And that I
would be interested into arguments to the contrary. I am deeply interested into
your reapraisal of your previous comment ? :-) [and maybe my spelling]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------->
> >
> HAMISH:
> > I don't think that Pirsig is trying to create an encyclopaedia.
>
> RICK:
> You're right, Pirsig is not trying to create an encyclopedia, he never even
> claimed to, and I mentioned this right up front in the topic proposal. As
> for "seeing the impact of a concept at various levels"... If anything, this
> only confuses the use of the MoQ even more so... How can I EVER make ANY
> moral judgments with the MoQ if EVERY pattern can be 'interpreted' to be on
> ANY level?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[proper answer to your question as oppposed to rhetorical skip to %]
...Er... You can't. You know these anti-cancer treatments just f**k on the
right of the cells to do what they know is best.
[with humblest apologies to people in said situation]
What I'm trying to say is that it is a judgment for best.
For instance ... I don't know how to pursuade many of my associates who are
racist etc. that their POV is *wrong*.
I would however consider a judgment for the people refered to in the last
sentence to be exterminated as *wrong*.
[%]
Actually I can't get out of a rhetorical answer. MoQ demands judgment [and
argument = dialogue]. Physics I am very happy to accept as a branch of MoQ -
it's one of the best methods of judgment we've see - in terms of materialism....
[ sorry v. late on response]
> -----------------
> RICK:
> If assigning patterns to levels is simply a matter of personal choice
> then why bother with the MoQ at all??? Why not just skip it and make those
> moral decisions on directly on the same personal choice???
> >
> > HAMISH:
> > Well, no reason really, it just seems like a better idea to do so.
>
> RICK:
> You'll agree that there's no reason to bother with the MoQ when making moral
> decisions, but still claim it's better to do so...??? Can you PLEASE
> explain that.
Rick, I really hesititate to quote from the dedication [correction the bit after
the dedication - my literary ignorance shinses through] ..
Yeah, yeah. [sans sarcasm] You are absolutely correct. This is an attempt to
show that MoQ is not subjective. As my "first bash" I might have forgot that.
What I'm trying to say is that the SOM is unfair : it's been at the same game
for 200+ years longer - at this point I'm not trying to be whiny, just say that
this is so. I consider that SOM is just as ad hoc as the defenders of SOM make
out MoQ to be.
Dare I say it? you have to decide, and you have to let others decide. [That
last bit is particularly difficult for a fascist like myself.] There is no
certainty.
> RICK:
> > It's all Good,
> >
> > HAMISH:
> > I wish.
> >
> But it really is,
> Rick
Rick : I BELIEVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!
All the best,
Hamish
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST