JONATHAN REHASHES THE ARGUMENT WITH PLATT AND STANDS BY "BASIC HUMAN
DECENCY". MAN IS THE MEASURE
Hi Horse, Donny, Platt, Bodvar, Theo (are you still here?) and Squad,
When Horse and Donny claim confusion about the argument between
Platt and myself, I have to stop and take notice.
That comment I made:-
>What's wrong with spilling blood?
Well, that was supposed to be sarcastic. We always hear how often e-mail
sarcasm is misinterpreted. I'm not going to blame e-mail, but accept the
responsibility myself. Sorry everyone if I have been any less than
crystal clear - and a special apology to Platt.
Now it is time to summarise and clarify the arguments because it IS
important for the morality discussion.
It partly goes back to a comment by BODVAR to THEO on 9th August:-
<<<
To your marriage example: I once said to Jonathan that the MOQ is a
General Metaphysics far too accurate for mundane matters, it solves
the great conundrums but such problems are best dealt with by ordinary
sensibility.
>>>
DONNY also made a relevant comment on 19th August:-
<<<
But if you need to look to philosophy to tell you whether to stay
married or not then either you live in a very warped social environment,
you yourself are a bit too much on the ecentric side, you're a
sociopath,
or else you've been given the wrong picture of philosophy.
>>>
Though we may phrase it in different ways, Donny, Bo and myself all
allow for what Bo calls "ordinary sensibility" and I call "basic human
decency" or "gut instinct".
Platt called it "warmed over pseudo love" in his post of 22 November.
In the same paragraph Platt wrote:-
<<<
If the MoQ is anything, it is a departure from morality written on a
stone tablet....
>>>
I fully agree with that statement of Platt's, but I suspect that his
"departure" is to a new Pirsigian stone tablet or Pirsigian god. Sorry
Platt if I misunderstand, but this how I interpret your negative
reactions to my postings.
JONATHAN:
> Yes Platt. Take Pirsig's ideas, make a chart, program them into a
> computer and start asking questions ....
>
> and when your new god tells you to sacrifice your own child . . .
what's
> going to hold you back Platt?
>
> Is anything going to hold you back?
HORSE replied:-
>Well you could start with the rejection of ANY God.
>Personally I mistrust all of them.
Right Horse. That's just my point. Healthy scepticism based on "basic
human decency" is paramount.
That's what holds people back. Otherwise, we may end up "just following
orders"
HORSE:
<<<
Something that seems to have been missing from this argument is
that reason AND compassion are what make good moral values.
>>>
I agree in principal, but would phrase it LOGIC and compassion (the
latter equivalent to my "human decency"). Together they make reason.
Logic without compassion can be unreasonable. The importance of the
logic part is to extrapolate action to possible outcomes, but logic (by
definition) can't decide which is the most desirable of the allowable
outcomes.
HORSE:
<<<
You walk down the road and you see two soldiers nailing someone to a
wall. They then proceed to strip his skin from his body. ...
>>>
My "moral assessment" of the situation determines how *I* behave. If
they are two 18-year-old Israeli soldiers, I might attack them
physically and ask for others to help and call the police or their
officers. I'm pretty sure that I would survive the episode unharmed, and
that the soldiers would end up in custody. On the other hand, if I were
in the Warsaw Ghetto, and those soldiers were SS ........ I might quite
possibly walk straight past.
Let's get back to that ironical twist in Lila....
PLATT
<<<
Robert Pirsig wrote:
But the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free
morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense
to themselves.
>>>
Ironically, it was Phadrus's behaviour that was "cost-free" and Rigel
who ended up saddled with Lila.
I have a lot of admiration for Pirsig, and think he is far too smart for
this to be a slip on his part.
That's why I refuse to regard "Lila - An Enquiry into Morals" as a
manual. That makes Pirsig the author a "posing moralist" typified by the
character of Phaedrus (who got Rigel so mad!).
Rather, I regard both ZAMM and Lila as thought provoking novels
encouraging us to use that old quality slogan "MAN IS THE MEASURE" as
the basis of morality.
Have a nice moral day all,
Jonathan
Postscript: BO's post just came in. I find it amusing that he regards me
as the SOM thinker "that irritated the true MOQ scholar Platt". It's a
pity that I seem to be in the minority on this since I KNOW
that I am right.
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