Hi Rick and Struan and Ed and all others
STRUAN:
Let me make it simple and direct. If you don't recognise anything other than
functional uses of the term 'good' then, a priori, you do not recognise moral
uses of the term,
'good.' If you do not recognise moral uses of the term, 'good,' then your
metaphysics is without
morals and thus amoral. The argument that 'not recognising "anything beyond
functional uses of the
term 'good'" (if such were true) could cause a metaphysics to be irredeemably
amoral."' is thus
indubitably true and fairly obvious.
JON:
Struan, I don't understand why you think Pirsig fails to see beyond the
functional uses of the term "good." As I see it, Pirsig claims that Good (or
God or Quality or Morality or X or whatever) created reality. Our only
conscious link to this Good is our evolving perception of it. Our perception
isn't perfect but it's all we've got.
I don't see how Pirsig fails to recognize the term "good" beyond functional
uses. One of his main points is that Good is beyond definition, and placing
it beyond the reach of definition kind of obliterates any inevitable failure
to see beyond functional uses, doesn't it?
STRUAN:
You wouldn't say that they
are bad answers because you have a simplistic and restricted notion of what
good is. Clearly, in
most contexts, 2 + 2 = 5 is a bad answer. This is such an obvious truth that
I would be astounded if
anybody reading this were to disagree (then again?).
JON:
It's really a matter of perspective, isn't it? Imagining a hypothetical
situation (perhaps strange to our current matrix of thought) where 2 + 2 = 5
is a good answer is not impossible. Just odd, from our limiting present
perspective.
To say flatly that 2+2=5 is bad could be considered simplistic and
restricted. It may not be popular in "most contexts" but it's a matter of
perspective. One can certainly conceive hypothetical (if perhaps odd)
situations where 2+2=5 has value and is good.
STRUAN:
It seems obvious to me that the goodness (or badness) of a
bird's nest is of a fundamentally different order to the goodness (or
badness) of me returning a
lost £5 note to its owner. I realise that you disagree and I realise why you
disagree. This does not
change the fact that you have blurred a very useful and important boundary
for no gain and you are
wrong to do so.
JON:
You are making a big deal over what you call "the good of utility" and "the
good of morality." I think it's a matter of common sense; helping humans is
more Moral than helping animals. We know this. The MOQ doesn't suggest
otherwise. Just a you often say we make an unnecessarily big deal over the
subject-object division in Pirsig's metaphysics, I think you are doing the
same thing by making a big deal over "good utility/good morality."
Jon
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