"Lila" seems like a Johnny Appleseed of a book, throwing out ideas with
gusto, and not with a great big game plan on how everything's going to turn
out. The ideas, like different seeds, will find different fortunes on
different soils, perhaps.
I also think we may be trying to eat our cake and still have it here:
If Pirsig had come up with a Grand Unifying Theory of Ethics that sorted out
everything, then by definition it would have reduced choices - it would be
entirely static. Insert our question into the metaphysical slot, pull the
ethics lever, and presto, an answer.
He's given us the foundations upon which we can build our own houses, I
think, rather than drawing up blueprints for us.
Excuse me if I seem like a scratched record too, but it still seems IMHO as
if the MoQ is best viewed as a toolkit - to fix, repair, and improve
intellectual mechanisms - rather than as a centralised factory-complex
itself. Or, as a kind of Lingua Franca for making different moral systems
intelligible to one another, rather than being the Mother of All Morality.
Or, as a common sound intellectual currency for the exchange of ideas.
Also, one view of religion, is as a spiritual inheritance.
Just because one's religion may - by whatever theory/prejudice - be of
higher quality, is absolutely no guarantee that one personally will use it
well. The well-use is something that MoQ could help with.
The same could be applied to social and philosophic systems, as Cultural and
Intellectual inheritance.
- Oisín
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 - 16:01:36 BST