Hi Denis, Wim:
Denis, you wrote:
> So I guess you're not that hot for Pirsig rational morality either, are you,
> Platt ? Why the "Logical Conclusions" post, then ? Why the MOQ (mock?)
> excuse for bombing Afghanistan, if even you agree that the MOQ isn't a
> reliable moral guide ? I would have preferred it if you had said "I want to
> bomb these bastards back to the Stone Age !" rather than try to drag Pirsig
> onto your bandwagon...
Oh I'm hot for Pirsig's rational morality all right. Social morality --
defending social values against killers -- isn't the same as individual
morality, as Wim put it so well when he said:
"There are rules 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."
(Post of 27 Nov. to Angus)
As for dragging Pirsig in, am I mistaken to think you denounce the "kill
or be killed" logic of self-defense?
> You do not have to be one-sided (although I would consider it a favor if you
> tried ;) but at least, please, be coherent.
Glad you agree with Emerson who wrote:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Speak what you
think today in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks
in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today."
Coherent enough for you? (-:
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 - 16:01:39 BST