Hey Bo,
Some comments on your comments.
> > 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.
RICK:
Your argument begs the question entirely. You asked for an example of a
non-moral quality. I cited the high-quality skill with which you type. In
any CONVENTIONAL sense, this good (your good writing) has nothing to do with
morality. In fact, it is only within the MoQ that ALL goods are moral
goods. That is, it is only within the MoQ that all Quality = Morality. In
fact, the whole MoQ is built on this propostion. And since it is this very
propostion that the original called to be supported, you cannot very well
cite the MoQ as proof of the propostion--- that's totally circular. No
wonder you always fail IQ tests.
As for my "long membership"... I will say only this... my understanding of
the MoQ can always be questioned, anyone's can (even your SOLAQI and related
extremisms have been questioned often by the members of this forum). But my
commitment is not to be questioned.... I toil in these forums because I love
the MoQ and the perspective it takes on both Metaphysics and morality. I
seek only to repair its weaknesses and bridge its gaps... something that can
never be done if the problems are all swept under the rug with circular
logic.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
RICK:
> > 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:
> 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.
RICK:
It's not Kant himself I am citing as relevant, but rather answering your
question by pointing to the most basic version of the disticntion between
moral (ethical)and non-moral (ethical) goods. I realize the MoQ doesn't
endorse this position (and may be justified in doing so) but I think the MoQ
has burden of proof when it comes to showing why we should be persuaded that
all Quality=Morality or all Good=ethical good.... or for that matter why we
should acknowledge a distinction between Ethics and Morals.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> > 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."
>
BO:
> 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?
RICK:
I don't remember using the word "objective"... rather, the quote was a
rhetorical flourish to remind you that SELF-EVIDENCE isn't really evidence
at all. By your logic (as presented here) it is nothing more than the
agreement of a majority which creates a truth.... I find it bizarre that to
support the MoQ you access many of the same arguments used by theologists to
support the existence of God, often claimed to be supported by such
"self-evidence". Don't you have anything more persuasive????
And no, I have not been sleeping in class. This is not how intellect out of
socitey works, you're trying to slip one past me. Rather, Intellect out of
society comes (as you have so eloquently said on past occasions) as result
of those things that are INDEPENDENT of what any one (or any society) thinks
of them. Not merely things that massive groups agree to be self-evident.
> RICK:
> > And as for
> > the MoQ "excessively" resolving the paradoxes of SOM... I think this
> > is a bit of a dodge,
>:
BO:
> 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.
RICK:
I'm sorry, I don't understand this bit. I know plenty of people who would
object to Pirsig's mind/matter "solution" (all mind is contained in matter,
all matter contained in mind)--- and how exactly the the MoQ SOLVE the
problem of evil???
>
RICK:
> > 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.
>
BO:
> 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.
RICK:
Nothing is gained by dodging criticisms and attacking critics... it is only
by embracing their observations, fixing the system or demonstrating why it
need not be fixed that the Strawsons and Struans will be silenced. Ignoring
them outright is tantamount to starting our own cult. The main purpose of
this passage was to give RMP a bit of a break here. I'm sure his works
could have been far more philosophically rigorous had he chosen to write
straight philosophy rather than philosophical novels... but he didn't, and I
for one am happy about that. However, we mus keep in mind that novels and
stories must have literary elements (like plot devices, good guys and bad
guys, plot twists) and sometimes these elements (in a book like Pirsigs) are
necessary although they may compromise the "purity" of the philosophy. I
for one want to give credit to Pirsig (at least) for creating a wonderful
novel.
And I bother because I CARE!!!! (remember your ZMM young Jedi???)
>
"All is Good," says the MoQ.
"Prove it," said the rest of us.
Rick
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST