Dear Angus (and Platt),
Thanks for reconciling 27/11 11:01 -0800 my meta-ethics (seeking
Meaning) with (your interpretation) of Pirsig's MoQ: "Pirsig's
ethics" [you mean "meta-ethics" I presume] "are: there are rules
of value to follow based on levels of quality. BUT there is ONE
trump card to the rules and that is the dynamic quality of the
individual ... The individual CAN violate the rules IN following
an individual response to quality. ... This trump card is
MYSTICAL and so history is the judge. BUT, Pirsig believes in the
'GOOD' so this mystical deviation from the rules should be good
in the long haul."
I hope Platt agrees with this interpretation of "the master's
work". (-:
Re-interpreting Pirsig's trump card "follow your individual
response to quality" as "seek meaning" enables us to apply the
insights of linguistics and (critical) semiology... Quality is
indefinable, Meaning is not. It might provide better answers to
the question “How can we know what we should do?” than Pirsig's
"only history will show".
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:01:39 BST