Hey Erin,
> >RICK
> >(1) The failure of LILA to give any method by which one may deduce what
> >pattern belongs to what level makes the application of the MOQ to moral
> >problems a guessing game at best. The system is easily enslaved to
support
> >almost any position desired by simply describing the patterns in terms
that
> >produce the desired conclusion.
>
> ERIN: MAYBE THAT WAS INTENTIONAL
RICK
I don't think so. Pirsig seems to think the MOQ adds clarity and precision
to moral conflicts, "...We can now deduce codes based on evolution that
analyze moral arguments with greater precision than before. (LILA p183)."
Moreover, I can't imagine anyone would sit down to create a compass that
points in whatever direction the explorer wants (what good would it be?).
The quotes you point to (about 'random access') seem to be directed at the
notion of efficiency, I'm not sure how you see it as relating to the problem
that levels may be under-defined.
ERIN:
As to any specific moral questions Pirsig told us we don't need anyone to
tell us what is good so why would he be hypocritical and go and tell us?
and...
GAV
Is there a contradiction between ZAMM and Lila regarding the question of
morals? does the statement '...and what is good, phaedrus, and what is not
good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?' preclude the need for an
explicit moral system? or are the two approaches complementary - one
intuitive, one rational?
RICK
The whole 'What is good and what is not? Need we someone to...etc' was
from ZMM. A book with a very different perspective on morality than LILA.
For example: "Molecules are molecules. They don't have any ethical codes to
follow except those that people give them. (ZMM p146)." Try reconcling
that with LILA. Pirsig himself refers to much of the philosophy in ZMM as
'abortive.' Bo communicates with Pirsig... he'll tell you all about it.
Furthermore, the quote from LILA I pointed to above (p183) indicates
that Pirsig is quite clear in his belief that the MOQ does in fact reveal
what is and isn't good. And what's more, his ruminations Social/Intellectual
conflicts seem to indicate that he now thinks that at least some people DO
need to be told what is good and what isn't.
ERIN
. Did you ever read (i can find it if you
> want me to) were Pirsig writes about left-hand being looked down upon?
> LILA Left, West, South---holistic thinking (acausal relationships)
> ZAMM Right, East, North--linear thinking (causal relationships)
RICK
I've been trying to figure out how we got started talking about this
directional stuff.. and it just occured to me... Do you realize that when I
first referenced Pirsig's bridge between eastern and westen philosophy (in
the post to Boeree) I was talking about actual geography? That is, Pirsig's
bridge between eastern (Zen, Tao, etc) and western (Plato,Kant,etc)
philosophy. Either way...
I'm not sure all that stuff with the cards is really 'acausal' or
'nonlinear' thinking. There's a quote in ZMM where Phaedrus notices how his
composition students are making the error of trying to think of 'what to
say' and 'how to say it' at the same time. I think the slips in LILA was
just his way around this problem. He started out by collecting material and
then took the time to put it into an order that made sense.... is that
'acausal' or 'nonlinear'. It just sounds 'organized' to me... But I could
be wrong.
rick
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 - 16:01:48 BST