Greetings,
Elephant. Your first 'monism' posting was ambiguous. For that reason I gave
two alternative refutations of your claim that I have a 'pragmatic charge'
to answer. You accepted the second and so the charge is refuted. From my
point of view a satisfactory conclusion.
To continue my aside for one moment. Contextual ethics consistent with the
Good are hardly new, as any Platonist with a capital 'P' will appreciate.
Pirsig, by contrast, was tempted 'to take all the moral conflicts of the
world and, one by one, see how they fit . . .within this framework.' By
'this framework' he means his taxonomy of levels. His whole thesis is based
upon layer upon layer of moral codes or rules underneath what he terms,
'Dynamic morality'. These codes (rules) are, for Pirsig, 'ABSOLUTELY' and
'SCIENTIFICALLY' proven and binding upon 'ALL PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES'. Pirsig
suggests that, 'We can now deduce codes based upon evolution that analyse
moral arguments WITH GREATER PRECISION THAN BEFORE'.
On the opposite end of the spectrum we have Elephant who claims:
ELEPHANT:
"Well MOQ, IMHO, says that we should all
think carefully about the rules we live our lives by, but that since the
objective of these rules is to serve higher goods (dynamic quality and
enlightenment towards that quality) different rules will serve better in
different situations and for different individuals."
Pirsig is clear that every moral dilemma can be solved by the moq,
absolutely and scientifically for all people at all times. Elephant tells us
that we can't expect good to reside in consistency of action. Pirsig is
convinced he has provided the ability to analyse moral arguments with a new
level of precision. Elephant provides only the age old, abstract, and
anything but precise, advice to serve a higher good. Pirsig is absolutely
clear that 'we are at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason'.
Elephant is equally clear that good (morality) is something that, 'we can
all intuit' (i.e. immediate apprehension without reason).
It seems to me that you, Elephant, are doing what Murdoch warned herself
against, in that you have created your own Pirsig. Might I suggest that when
you use Pirsig to criticise my arguments, you actually take some account of
what he wrote as opposed to shoe-horning him into your own pet theory?
Finally, I will not be taking up your offer to give an expanded account of
my own views. This is a forum for discussing the moq, not me. Can you
imagine the flak I would cop if I started to propose and then defend in
detail a, 'metaphysics of Struan', on a forum devoted to Pirsig? No chance,
stick to your speculative flights of fancy and I will stick to the purpose
of the forum.
Struan
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