Just to correct some rather careless glaring errors in my earlier post:
JONAHAN
> 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.
CORRECTED version:
"Static" morality would equate with Victorian
morality - a talmudic set of rules of etiquette, *with* 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.
CORRECTED version:
To Platt, I argued the point that we should *NOT* 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. It is
unreasonable
> even to expect such rules from the Pirsig since it would be inherently
> contradictory and lead only to moral stagnation.
>
Sorry about the errors everyone.
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