Hi Squonk:
> Re. Science of morals: Last two paragraphs of chapter 12 Lila.
I checked these out and find no reference to a science of morals. He
(Pirsig) does speak of science and ethics being integrated into a
single system he named the Metaphysics (not science) of Quality.
In many places he says the problem with science is that it is objective
and therefore finds no morals as it studies natural phenomena, or
when studying societies, declares morals relative.
> Re. Biological attack: Nope, it's a struggle between two social patterns.
> Degenerate Christians V fundamentalist Muslims. Religions are a moral code
> conferred by a deity. A biological attack has more to do with sexual
> selection, territories, etc.
Freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not
products of degenerate Christians. They are products of intellectual
values as Pirsig clearly states. As for biology, when Pirsig writes
"Society can handle biology alone by means of prisons and guns and
policy and military," he's not talking about sexual selection.
> Re. Absolute truth. Science has an in built eraser, religion does not;
If you have an eraser and are willing to use it, you are not a purveyor
of absolute truth by definition.
> Re. Metaphysics. I understand the distinction between physics and metaphysics.
> The MOQ is a contradiction of sorts and that is why we may be able to base
> science upon Quality rather than Truth.
> Plato made the mistake of insisting upon a form of truth, and Aristotle
> embodies this in his theory of substance.
> If science has an in built eraser, then maybe one day we can place Quality at
> it's heart?
> Let's not insist that static terms such as, 'Science' can never change their
> meaning?
Sure, science can change its meaning if everybody agrees. Until then,
we should stick with the common meaning so we can understand one
another.
> If you feel the MOQ has no implications for the environment Platt, then my
> heart sinks. I feel a dreadful despair to think that a fellow explorer of a
> Metaphysics of Quality does not feel his Planetary biosphere to be of major value.
Don't despair. Of course the planet (biological level) has major value.
However, I believe with a number of scientists that the dangers are
overblown. Too many dire predictions have failed to materialize, and
when some environmentalists join in rioting and pillaging, I become
skeptical of their true motives.
Best,
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 - 16:01:31 BST