Hello ELEPHANT, STRUAN, 3WD, PLATT, HORSE, MARK, . . .
Elephant
> The morality thing has really caught fire, so I'll talk about that.
The topic always has caused a stir - my own involvement in the debate
goes way back (remember Platt?) despite my recent silence.
Elephant [snip]
> "It seems to me that morality corresponds to static patterns of
quality, and
> this entirely accords with my idea that morality is the application of
> intellect to the intellectual formalisation of a reality which is
> preintellectual, ie Dynamic Quality. Static Quality is Morality:
that's
> what Pirsig was saying. Dynamic Quality is not Morality: that's what I
was
> saying. So, no conflict."
On the one hand, I don't agree with Struan's position that Pirsig's
Quality idea has nothing to do with morality. On the other hand, I don't
agree with Elephant either.
To put it in Lila terms, "Static" morality would equate with Victorian
morality - a talmudic set of rules of etiquette, without little regard
to circumstance. Pirsig clearly places little value in this sort of
morality - instead morality has to be open to the "dynamics" of the
situation, i.e. to be open minded.
This is the essence of the argument I once had with Platt. To Platt, I
argued the point that we should look for a set of rules of morality
within the MoQ.
I note that the basis of Struan's attack on Pirsig is exactly BECAUSE
the MoQ fails to provide a set of rules of morality. I it unreasonable
even to expect such rules from the Pirsig since it would be inherently
contradictory and lead only to moral stagnation.
Jonathan
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