Hi,
There is no such thing as good or bad ; but thinking makes it so.
"If you say that everything is moral then that means morality is
everything, which reduces to
everything is everything, which means nothing." (Struan - after Pirsig)
This statement ,ironically is "true" . the masters teach that "from the
first not a thing is"
"Form is emptiness, emptiness form.
----- Original Message -----
From: Struan Hellier <struan@clara.co.uk>
To: Moq_Discuss@Moq. Org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 13 June 2000 6:11:pm
Subject: MD Rambling Madmen
Greetings,
Platt writes of the unspoken assumption of unbelievers being the undeniable
moral value of truth. It
was clear to me from the outset that this relied upon a re-invention of the
word 'moral' and this
was shown to be the case when Platt presented his definition.
Platt:
"Morality is what's good, right, true or beautiful."
The problem is that this is not what is meant by morality. Morality is
entirely concerned with the
goodness or badness of human behaviour. It is not surprising that if the
'unbeliever' is confused by
the terms he is using, then he will be even more confused by the argument
that Platt presents.
At issue here is not my objection to Pirsig re-inventing definitions of
perfectly good words
(although I object to that also); it is the way that this obfuscation is
designed purely to
establish a deeply flawed point. There is a huge and vital difference
between the 'good' of utility
(e.g. 2 + 2 = 4 is a good answer) and the 'good' of morality (e.g. It was
good of you to help that
old lady across the street). What Pirsig (and now Platt) has done is to
reduce the 'good' of
morality to the 'good' of utility. In doing so they advocate an irredeemably
amoral metaphysical
position. Yes, that is what I mean. The MoQ has nothing whatsoever to
contribute to debates about
morality, simply because it does not recognise anything beyond functional
uses of the term 'good.'
Platt can repeat his point that every assertion is a moral judgement after
everything I (or others)
say if he so desires. Without resorting to comments about his ancestry I
will simply repeat my point
that he should look up morality in a dictionary. If Platt then comes back at
me and tells me that
the dictionary is wrong and that 2 + 2 = 4 is a moral assertion, I will
rightly conclude that he is
(despite his protestations) some sort of new age nut whose moral foundation
is as insubstantial as
castles in the sand.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"If you say that everything is moral then that means morality is
everything, which reduces to
everything is everything, which means nothing." (Struan - after Pirsig)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:44 BST