>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@cbvnol.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:47:53 -0400
>
>Hi Horse, Gerhard, Andrea, Marco, All:
>
>Horse, rather than debate your point about a re-run of the Florida
>election as being the highest Quality resolution of that issue, or the
>kindness of Indians, or the necessity for coercion in society, I want to
>focus on the following:
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, I assume that grain, fruit and vegetables are abundant in the U.S.
>but in Chapter 14 Lila
> > and Mr P. tuck into a meal of steak and fries. Hence P. is acting
>immorally. However the
> > actions of the author does nothing to damage the veracity of his
>metaphysics. In exactly the
> > same way if neither Andrea or Marco lift a finger to help anyone this
>does not detract from
> > the veracity of their writings. In attacking Andrea or Marco for such
>you are using Ad
> > Hominem arguments - a point I made previously. I was using the above
>passage to illustrate
> > exactly this as I believe exactly this point was made against Pirsig in
>the past by someone
> > who should've known better (not you Platt I hasten to add).
>
>Actually I was unaware of this hypocrisy in the MOQ and appreciate
>your pointing it out. Frankly I was shocked to learn that the MOQ
>considers vegitarians to be morally superior to the vast majority of
>Americans and Europeans, at least as regards their eating habits. That
>I never picked up on this before illustrates once again that one tends to
>see what one wants to see.
>
>I think Pirsig's hypocrisy does indeed damage the veracity of his
>metaphysics. He cannot berate Rigel on one hand and escape
>criticism of himself on the other. He cannot set up a moral code and
>then violate it without raising doubts about his sincerity. Once that
>doubt is raised, he begins to lose authenticity.
Hi Platt
I suspect Phaedrus is an aspect of Robert Pirsig but rightfully so are all
the characters in Lila. Perhaps Phaedrus might be seen as the internal
discursive dialogue (the intellect), forever chattering on about the
meaningful/meaningless; constantly contradicting himself yet confident the
stream of his own words will overcome these contradictions in the end. Rigel
might be seen as a guardian who has turned into a guard, envious of the
Great Author outwardly yet genuinely concerned with his welfare under the
surface. By their pulling apart these two aspects tend to grow closer.
>
>Since the MOQ can be interpreted in ways to justify our moral
>preconceptions (meaning it can be all things to all people and thus
>meaningless), and since Pirsig himself violates his own canons,
>should we take the rest his metaphysics seriously?
It has been my experience that those who come into contact with the MOQ each
interpret it in their own fashion and thereby give it meaning. Before that,
it is meaningless. Robert Pirsig is an author and Phaedrus is a fictional
character in his books. They are not the same. It seems tantamount to
judging Shakespeare on the qualities of Hamlet.
>
>Your answer, Horse, is that the actions of the author make no
>difference. I would dearly like to agree, but I can't. Actions speak louder
>than words in my book, especially when it comes to matters moral.
>Also, that there seems to be as many interpretations of the MOQ as
>there are contributors to this site raises the suspicion that there's
>reallly less of a fundamental nature here than meets the eye.
Since experience is value I find little surprise in each of us interpreting
the MOQ in a unique fashion. Actually the surprise would be that we did!
>
>Further, Marco, Andrea and Gerhard find plenty in the MOQ to support
>humanitarian morality even though I cannot, and even though Pirsig
>abandoned Lila at the end so he could continue his "selfish" cruise--
>hardly a humanitarian act.
>
>I will now reexamine the MOQ in the light of of an author who may be
>pulling our collective legs.
Looking forward to any thoughts you might share.
Thank you
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
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 - 16:01:24 BST