Hi Jonathan and LS:
Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> Platt, what "intellectual construct" did YOU use to show unambiguously
> that I supported Rigel and condemned Phaedrus? I deliberately used some
> rhetorical tricks (e.g. "slink off" rather than "depart") to cast things
> in a certain light. Each one of us makes his own judgement.
Using words to reflect a point of view is an intellectual construct,
as is rhetoric. I agree each of us makes his own judgements. The
question is, on what basis? Your answer seems to be "from biological
instinct," like a mother's caring for her child. I don't think that's
what Pirsig means by a rational morality, do you?
> I don't think so Platt. Mankind has always valued people who care
to
> help others.
OK. Now you seem to say that morality is whatever society says it is.
Or to put it in rhetorically pejorative terms, morality by mob. Also,
"mankind" is an awfully broad word. It's easy for me to love mankind,
but as for the guy next door ...?
> >In Chapter 30, Pirsig talks about "the whole cultural set...says that
> >doing nothing is the same as doing something wrong" and goes on the
> >explain that the MoQ supports "dhyana," a retreat into isolation and
> >silence.
>
> That is sometimes appropriate, sometime not. Imagine the Good Samaritan
> going off to meditate !!!
Yes, my point. But how do you decide? By instinct? By what others will
say about you?
> Platt, what does an "Ivory Tower" mean to you?
Philosophy, academe, the Lila Squad and, oh yes, science.
> [snip]
> >Most of the moral sentiments expressed this month on the Squad have
> >not been based on the MoQ so much as warmed over pseudo love ...
>
> That's Platt's rhetoric for saying that basic cross-cultural human
> decency derived from instinct isn't worth very much, while I call it the
> highest form of morality.
Fine. But Pirsig claims the MoQ allows us to deal with morals "on the
basis of reason." I take it you utterly reject Pirsig's rational
approach and prefer instinct and social agreement (majority rule?) as
your guiding moral lights.
> I now realise that it is stupid to talk about "morality" from anything
> other than the human perspective. We can't make moral judgements about
> anything other than our own behaviour, because that's the only thing we
> control. Intellect is nothing more than a tool for
> analysing the likely outcome of alternative behaviours.
Well, so much for the value of the MoQ perspective. Sometime perhaps
you'd care to explain just what the "human perspective" is. I'm human
and obviously have a somewhat different perspective from yours as do
many others on the planet I would suggest. As for intellect being
"nothing more than," I get the idea that you, like Fintan, put the
social level morally above the intellectual, which seems strange to me
coming from a scientist.
It all sounds to me, Jonathan, that you are flat out renouncing the
MoQ as a rational means for determining what is moral, thereby
dismissing a large chunk of Pirsig's metaphysics. Sorry if you find my
questions and ideas "irritating." And if I've misinterpreted your
views, I apologize.
Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:40 BST