Rick and MF
> RICK: (to Diana)
> 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 projectss 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....
Hi Rick
Your comments to Diana's may be valid. It sounds
philosophologically right :-)
> 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
I always fail at IQ-tests so the "quality as a type of morality"
enigma still eludes me, and your example didn't help much. Isn't
good writing (if that's what "typing" means?) a quality and thus
good? As always I suspect that you by 'morality' mean ETHICS -
which in SOM is what you must do to be a good citizen, or - at a
more elevated plane, but somish to the hilt - to be a good person,
and if this still is believed to be the (only) QUALITY of the MOQ
...phew? Your long membership and at times seemingly
understanding of the matter at hand had me fooled.
> 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).
I had hoped that "an infinity" would have yilded just ONE example --
other than reference to Kant. Kant as relevant for a Pirsig
discussion??!! But now that I think I understand, more examples
are unnecessary.
> 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 Ambrose Beirce is the "objective" source? But I don't disagree
with him at all. Of course a thing is self-evident to one single
person at first, then he presents it to other - and receive blank
stares or nods of approval - and as more and more people nod it
becomes more and more self-evident and finally a "truth". If not he
ends up on the cross, as the village idiot or a nutcase. This an
example of MOQ's "Intellect out of society" tenet. Rick have you
been sleeping in class?
> And as for
> the MoQ "excessively" resolving the paradoxes of SOM... I think this
> is a bit of a dodge,
No, it is no dodge Rick, but it's no use for me to start blethering - I
am perhaps the very obstacle - but generally the mind/matter
paradox and that of evil is resolved and by God that's no small feat.
> 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.
Haven't we heard this a couple of times before - Strawson the first -
and if this is your evalualtion of Pirsig's accomplisment I just don't
understand why bothering.
> All is Good,
Yes, that's the very point. Heed your own slogan.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST