In a message dated 1/13/00 12:49:14 PM Central Standard Time,
struan@clara.co.uk writes:
<< So. Quality is not synonymous with morality, good, bad or value. Good is
nothing more than (as you
put it) a 'classification of (an) experience.' and, furthermore ethics
depend almost exclusively
upon intuition. So far you have established nothing whatsoever about X.
Therefore to call it Quality
is entirely fanciful, and ethics, once more, is reduced to an emotivist or
intuitionist position.
May I ask what is left of the moq? >>
Then tell me please Struan, which philosophy do you subscribe to? Would I be
correct in assuming you believe the following.....
The MoQ is deeply flawed and ultimately useless.
Robert Pirsig's main contribution to philosophy was writing a good book (ZMM)
which managed to get a lot of people interested in philosophy, but he
introduced no new ideas and didn't really put much of a useful twist on the
existing ideas. As an innovator, Pirsig hasn't accomplished much.
You don't believe in God and have little use for any type of mysticism. You
have little use for Buddhism.
Reality is cold and mathematical we humans need to accept the fact that we
are nothing more than chemicals, elaborations of carbon who need to invent
metaphysical explanations of life. The true point of life is X. Accept it,
people.
LOL, of course I'm exaggerating, but I'm intrigued to know what philosophy
you think is the best, most correct view of life.
Jon
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST