ELEPHANT TO DAVID PRINCE:
David, I just wanted to say that I agree with everything you say, with two
exceptions.
If Struan agrees too, it will be seen that we have both been wasting time in
swift bad tempered exchanges, while all along there was truth and agreement
to be had if we understood each other properly. I hope that reading back
through my posts you will see that what you say is *exactly* what I have
been meaning to express about morality being directed at the good, and not
being fixable in any currently useful set of rules.
The exceptions?
(1) The logical inconsistencies you speak of I take as the inconsistencies
of the multi-level moral psyche which Lila is an antropological study of (ie
western mythos: the inorganic, biological, social etc). Here the
inconsistencies which should trouble Aristotelians attach to what Pirsig's
argument describes in a moral taxonomy, not Pirsig's argument as to where
moral progress would aim at.
(2) While the analytical element is all to the good in my veiw, the 'fuck
you' attitude has the unfortunate (but entirely intended, I intuit) effect
of infuriating large horned (and unhorned) animals until they see red and
charge. It makes for excellent sport but inferior philosophy.
'Love and understanding' might be a soppy cliche, but there is some truth in
the idea that the two go together. Certainly a basic degree of respect goes
along way in facilitating understanding. We could all do with following
your generous and open minded example, David.
Just Imagine, a generous bullfighter and a generous bull.
Elephant Bull
> From: "David Prince" <deprince@bellsouth.net>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:56:53 -0600
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: Re: MD Morality
>
> Struan,
>
> I just wanted to personally thank you for being a part of the MOQ
> discussion group. (I was just downstairs thinking of determinism, the
> uncertainty principle, and perceived random Vs. true random.) For providing
> an opposing viewpoint, all members of the MOQ should thank you for inserting
> the dynamic, analytical, "fuck you" element to the discussion. When you
> have a group of people who all agree, the philosophical inquiry stagnates
> into doctrine and loses its value as an intellectual stimulant.
> It is interesting that you make the point that Pirsig's reasoning is
> really his emotional reactions to established philosophical doctrine. It is
> equally interesting that he, or anyone else would attempt to defend against
> this position considering that one of his main ideas is the importance of
> the inclusion of subjectivity in the quest for truth.
> Without question one of the main issues at stake is the defining of the
> "philosophical high ground" or as I like to say, "What is the Philosophy of
> Philosophy?" It has been a point in Pirsig's work to show that logic(truth,
> dialectic, Aristotle, analysis) isn't the end all be all of philosophical
> discourse. Why then, would an author who takes this stance worry about
> whether his arguments are logically consistent? That seems to me to be
> conceding the point to the Aristotelian.
> I wish I could answer your questions more promptly. I, unlike some, take
> them very seriously and research the validity of the objections before I
> rapid fire insults, contradictions, and strawmen back towards the
> opposition. I have come to the conclusion that you are correct about the
> logical inconsistencies within Lila, however, I do not believe that these
> necessarily are a mistake by the author. They become a mistake to me when he
> attempts to claim that they are not logical inconsistencies. They also
> become a mistake when he claims that his MOQ can resolve all moral questions
> absolutely by providing the rationale for a specific set of actions to be
> taken when confronted with any moral dilemma. This is absolutely absurd
> within the context of Mahayana Buddhism and its dependence upon the
> perception of the Dharma to lead the true self forward. It is also
> absolutely absurd to assume that any ethical system can provide specific
> guidelines for all people at all times. Change is the way of the universe
> and what works today will probably not work in ten thousand years. And of
> course, I reserve the right to take back any of the above statements at any
> time should new knowledge be brought to light by you or any others.
> Again, thank you so very much. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that I
> have not dwelt upon often. It has suddenly become very interesting.
>
> -dave
>
> David Prince
> Systems Analyst
> www.NeoNome.com -The New, Free, Peer-to-Peer Internet!
> Download the free client, and register your free name today!
> http://www.neonome.com/products/neonomeclient.zip
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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