Hi Horse:
> On 29 Jun 2001, at 15:42, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > "Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world,
> > the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It
> > was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil
> > War."
I didn't write this. Pirsig did.
>
> And then threw it in the bin by allowing a handful of judges to determine the will of the
> American people.
For another perspective read "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal
the Election" by Bill Sammon.
> Have you also forgotten the support and assistance that was provided by many Europeans?
To Adam Smith and John Locke Americans owe a great deal. But
Pirsig attributes much of our belief in the morality of freedom from the
heavy hand of government to the American Indian.
> Platt, some time back you criticized the use of the Ad Hominem argument but now seem to
> be using it in response to both Andrea and Marco. It seems to me that there is a difference
> between the hypocrisy of Rigel (which is, after all the point Pirsig was making about cost-free
> morals) and the beliefs of Marco and Andrea.
By connecting my criticism directly to Pirsig's opinion of Rigel I felt
justified. If I had just said something like "you're stupid" or "you're
hypocritical" without any reference to Lila, I would accept your judgment
and apologize. Furthermore, if either Andrea or Marco feel I am guilty of
an ad hominem attack, I will apologize to each of them personally.
But let's keep in mind Pirsig's critique of the humanitarian premise:
"The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone wihtout coercion
cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a
devasting fiction."
> Does Pirsig eating meat destroy the validity of this:
>
> "A popular moral issue that parallels the germ-patient issue is vegetarianism. Is it immoral,
> as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the flesh of animals? Our current morality would
> say it’s immoral only if you’re a Hindu or Buddhist. Otherwise it’s okay, since morality is
> nothing more than a social convention.
> An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say it’s scientifically immoral for everyone
> because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than are grains
> and fruits and vegetables. But the moral force of this injunction is not so great because the
> levels of evolution are closer together than the doctor’s patient and the germ. It would add,
> also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruits and
> vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since
> they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism."
>
> and hence the evolutionary morality of the MoQ?
>
> I think not.
What's your point? Pardon my dimness, but I don't see the connection
to discussion at hand.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:23 BST