Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:23:03 +0100
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 19:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Donald T Palmgren
<lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu> wrote:
> Since this subject has come up again and been hotly
> debated (at least Anthony got steamed-up... I mean, if I
> believe the universe is composed of moral values...
> jeeze! I probably also believe in aliens and that Elvis
> is still alive and....
Hi Donny and Jonathan,
Firstly, Donny, nice to see you back in "town" - we still
haven't finished our discussion on Time have we?
I wouldn't take my ravings on Elvis, Buddy and the Aliens
too seriously though I hope you might give more weight to
why I reject the MOQ as some sort of relativist theory in
my last e-mail to Glove.
After discussing this with Doug recently, it would have
been more accurate for me to say "moral relativism" (rather
than JUST "relativism") as the MOQ holds truth to be
relative while the Good is perceived to be absolute.
My opinion is that the speed of light, E=mc2 etc are just
the best static intellectual patterns that we have
thought of at the present moment - and that includes
thinking Good is the only absolute as well. As far as I
read LILA, to state that the universe (or reality) is
composed of "moral values" is just the best way of looking
at the universe (from a pragmatic point of view) at the
moment, for Robert Pirsig, at least.
Secondly, I thought Jonathan's summary of SQ and DQ
pretty good i.e.
SQ - our best possible view of the world
DQ - what makes it better
However, the line "our best possible view of the
world" seems to be more applicable to just static
intellectual patterns rather than to all the static
patterns (from Inorganic to Intellectual).
Moreover, Magnus stated:
> I would argue that "gravity" is inorganic SPoV, whereas
> "the law of gravity" is intellectual SPoV.
while Jonathan replied:
"And I would argue that both are intellectual conceptions
of something we place in the inorganic level."
Could you please explain why you think this is so,
Jonathan, as this statement without any FURTHER REASONING
is pretty vague.
This "missing" reasoning of yours would be very much
appreciated.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
"Every time you discover for the first time that something
is better than something else - that is where Dynamic
Quality exists. There is no fixed static location for it."
Robert Pirsig, 23rd February 1998.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST