Hi Struan and all,
Struan, I do recognise that you sometimes make valuable contributions
to this forum, otherwise I wouldn't bother with this dialogue. However,
I not appreciate your style (often insulting) or your hypocrisy. . .
STRUAN
>The usual course of events is this. 1) I put forward an argument. 2)
Someone
>else puts forward a counter argument. 3) I reasonably show them why I
think
>they are wrong. 2 & 3 then alternate for a greater or lesser period of
time
>until my antagonist decides that he cannot win and so tells me that one
>shouldn't be applying logic to the moq anyway . . .
Or let me substantiate my accusation of hypocrisy by noting that there
are plenty of examples where the argument doesn't finish this way. For
example, I note Struan's tendency to deliberately ignoring certain
directions the dialogue has taken.
(Or perhaps it isn't deliberate, but just total closed-mindedness)
STRUAN
> 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?
>
I answered in two parts:
1. I agreed that some of the examples (in particular the one's Struan
repeatedly picks out) raise a lot of new problems. Evidently, this is
all that Struan saw (or chose to see).
2. I stated that despite the problems, I believe that Pirsig's framework
DOES provide a useful tool for tackling ethical problems. This is what
Struan ignored:
JONATHAN (19 Jan 2001)
Personally, I still think that Pirsig overstates his case, but I see no
compelling reason to reject his framework altogether. Pirsig has
presented the evolutionary relationship between levels in a way that I
interpret as evolution of complexity. The more complex patterns
encompass a wider viewpoint than less complex patterns. There's a
passage somewhere in Lila (or was in ZAMM?) where Pirsig discusses "the
big picture" vs. short-term gain. That's where I think the key to the
whole morality question lies. To my way of thinking, it is ALWAYS more
moral to take account of the biggest picture possible. Rules and laws
exist to save us the trouble, and in most cases it is good practice to
follow them . . . . . UNTIL one sees a bigger picture that indicates
otherwise.
Now Struan, if you completely reject every aspect of Pirsig's
philosophy, please explain why you reject the above.
Jonathan Marder
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