Greetings,
DAVID,
I disagree that my monism is entirely objective, but will let that go for
now. As I have found out before, if people on this forum decide that that is
what you think, then no amount of persuasion will change their mind.
To the point though, and I merely wonder how precisely one retains morality
if one loses the self? It seems to me that if your model of the moq
pertains, the answer to Pirsig's inquiry into morals is simply that there is
no such thing, unless one reduces the good of morality to the much more
mundane good of what I ate for breakfast this morning, or the 'quality' way
planets orbit around the sun. But, of course, morality is much more than
that. It is about individuals, and groups of individuals, being
*responsible* for their actions *in the world*. One of my oldest objections,
yet still without a coherent answer.
GLENN,
A minor point but, actually, I didn't write that people on this forum are
mindless. I wrote that Horse's behaviour puts this forum in danger of
appealing only to the mindless. Indeed I was right to an extent. The latest
message from Horse serves no purpose other than to inform the reader that
Horse said everything he wanted to say in the previous message (!?!?) thus
demonstrating once more the level he is aiming at, while a semi-literate
diatribe from dkm shows how the irrevocably mindless themselves can be
attracted to the fray. Hmmm, I rest my case.
Oh, and it's Stru-ann with the emphasis on the first syllable, Clarke. You
were right the first time. Glad to see that not everyone has fallen prey to
the staticticians though!
Struan
Struan Hellier
<mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
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 - 16:00:58 BST