Hey all,
I think it may be appropriate to start this one off with a quote from the
psychologist Sheldon Kopp who tells us, "Evil can be displaced, but never
eradicated as all solutions breed new problems." That being said....
DIANA:
....can I point out that there's not a single point on this list
that hasn't been asked and answered before. Most of them have been
discussed in great detail. And yet they still appear to be unresolved.
Clearly the reason isn't because nobody's got any answers, it's because
there's no process for consolidating ideas. Without any static latches
we start from scratch every time, and that is what I'm trying to address
this month.
RICK:
I hate to say it, but if static latching is what you seek this month, then
prepare yourself for disappointment. I think there's a fundemental
threshold issue that will prevent this goal from being realized. Namely,
we've got NOTHING to latch to! That is, we have no "codified" MoQ. Since
the failure of such projects as the "Principia" and the "catechism of
Quality" we have been left as a congress trying to amend a constitution that
nobody has yet written. I agree that we need to do ome latching, but first,
we need the basics codified so that there's something to latch to. Now....
BO:
> Morality a type of quality? The opposite (quality a type of morality)
> not always true. An example please.
RICK:
Huh? Has Bo gone nuts? An example of Quality not as a type of morality...
okay, here's one: That's some high quality typing you did in that post Bo.
You need another example? There are an infinity of examples of non-moral
types of Quality. I suggest you consult Kant's thoughts on the distinction
between "Categorical" and "Hypothetical" Imperatives.... A 'categorical
imperative' is a moral-normative statement like "It's good (quality) to keep
one's promises." A 'hypothetical imperative' is a NON-moral normative
statement like "It's good (quality) to keep a dictionary with you when
writing." (See the Critique of Pure Reason or any freshman philosophy text
for more on this point).
>
BO:
> > 1.2 Pirsig has proven that quality is real. However, that quality is
> > reality itself has been left almost totally unsupported.
>
> The first postulates - axioms - of any all-encompassing systems
> (from geometry to metaphysics) are supposed to be self-evident:
> not proven. It is the ability of the system to resolve the paradoxes
> of the former which is its proof and the MOQ has done so
> excessively regarding the SOM.
RICK:
I quote Ambrose Beirce (author of the Devil's Dictionary) who defined
"self-evident" as "evident to one's self, but no one else."
And as for the MoQ "excessively" resolving the paradoxes of SOM... I think
this is a bit of a dodge, after all, the SOM is a "catch all" system
designed by PIRSIG for the purpose of correcting with the MoQ.... he wrote
a wrote a novel where the hero was a metaphysics (the MoQ), and like all
good novels, he needed a bad guy for his hero to face off against, in this
case a "bad guy" metaphysics (the SOM).
Whether the MoQ has actually resolved any real philosophical problems has
yet to be seen.... the jury is still out on this one.
All is Good,
Rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST