ELEPHANT TO STRUAN, JONATHAN, ALL:
Hi Ho.
JONATHAN WROTE:
> "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 (consider?) it
> unreasonable
> even to expect such rules from the Pirsig since it would be inherently
> contradictory and lead only to moral stagnation."
STRUAN WROTE:
> I agree that it is unreasonable to expect this. I wonder if you, Jonathan,
> are in agreement with me that the ethical examples in Lila cannot be
> reasonably justified and that Pirsig is wrong when he tells us that every
> ethical dilemma can be placed into his framework to give us an absolutely
> scientific answer, which is binding upon all men for all times?
>
> If I could establish this as the 'official' position of the forum, I would
> happily retire and never forward another critique!!!
ELEPHANT:
Ok. Struan, if by 'framework' you mean the taxonomy of the levels then I
agree, as I have made clear again and again. I suspect that large number of
MOQers also agree, to judge from comments on my position in Focus. There is
atleast a minority consensus that Pirsig's application of MOQ to the beleif
systems of the west is just that: an application, not the thing itself.
Others disent, however, and I doubt that you could ever call anything said
here an official position, so I suppose you will stick around.
But if by 'framework' you mean the picture of true moral endeavour as a
struggle towards dynamic quality, I disagree. Again, I have made the
distinction before.
STRUAN WROTE:
> Glenn. I agree entirely with what you say; just one very, minor point:
>
> GLENN:
> "Therefore, I don't see how MOQ defies refutation by Western logic by
> claims that it is more art or fiction than metaphysics."
>
> If the moq is not meant to be logical or scientific, it is unfair to apply
> logic and science to it. You are undoubtedly correct that Pirsig thinks it
> is logical and scientific and it is the job of the logical and scientific to
> show that it is not. There is little point in arguing with those who agree
> that, "rigorous application of Western logic evaluating "Art" as "Science"
> or novels as philosophical treatises will probably lead to fatally flawed
> conclusions." This is a very honest and entirely reasonable reaction to
> Pirsig's work. It is the irredeemably confused (no names) with whom I am
> concerned.
ELEPHANT:
How public spirited of you (but, surely, if they are really beyond
redemption, they merit not your concern?). I entirely agree that Pirsig
means MOQ to be logical and scientific. But the point at issue is: what
constitutes MOQ? And what, in contrast, constitutes a moral taxonomy
conducted *under* the principles of MOQ - ie as a means to understanding the
situation which is to be transcended? Because it is not an obligation on a
taxonomy to be coherent: the obligation is to faithfully reproduce the
incoherencies in the situation that is to be described.
Again, I have made these points before.
I have also provided a taxonomy of my own immanent moral situation by
becoming quite livid at your inablity, I should say refusal, to pay any
attention (dismissing anything I constructive I say, together with all the
textual support for my reading of Pirsig, as merely my own speculative
'flights of fancy', rewarding my solicitous private encouragements with
personal abuse based on the information forwarded in private, etc etc).
FLYING ELEPHANT
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