Sorry about brief response but Cinderella-ish, month expires.
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> If Pirsig's philosophy hinges on the statement that that which is more
> dynamic is more moral, we need to ensure that this is not an emotive
> statement. It needs more support than a handfull of examples and the empty
> assurance that "Robert feels it is true, so it is true." An emotive
> postulate would open the MOQ up to charges that it allows biological/social
> values to consume an intellectual pattern. This would make the MOQ a low
> quality metaphysics based on its own terms. It would be no different than
> ethics that say:
>
> "Choices that preserve the highest degree of pattern are more moral," or,
>
> " That which maximizes happiness is more moral", or
>
> "That which God decrees is more moral (and I am his messenger)"
>
> I have offered the suggestion that the MOQ can escape this emotive charge if
> we replace it with the postulate that DQ = morality = reality = direct
> experience. I believe this is implicit in Lila, but I can see where others
> could disagree. See my other post for clarification. I also am very open to
> any alternative solutions. What I cannot understand is how anyone can ignore
> the issue, especially considering it that it was part of the topic of the
> month. Everyone agrees that the MOQ's morality cannot be dismissed based on
> the assumptions of SOM -- one of which is the assumption that morality is
> only an emotive social issue. However, there was very little discussion of
> whether any of the postulates of the MOQ appear emotive.
Um. I would say that it's the relationship that DQ strikes with SQ that is
maximum morality. Yeah, sometimes SQ has to break. But not all the time. Try
thinking in terms of assassins bullets or sizeable asteroids. Morality is served
where the SQ can properly underpin the DQ and target it in non-destructive
manifestations. It's a bit Plato's cavish but DQ is the light illuminating the SQ
shadows on the wall. SQ inevitably breaks when there is very little light
silhouetting the shadows by which we are supposed to survive.
In terms of this month's topic to try to make this halal/kosher - rationality has
to deal with it's cutting edge, a lot of which is emotive. This isn;t to say that
it should be subsumed into emotiveness, just that it should accept it's
down-at-heels step sister. Similarly MoQ shouldn't beat up on Rationality so.
Rigids,
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