I'd just like to say something regarding morals. Morals can be either good as in moral, not so good as in immoral or be neither as in amoral. Amoral seems to mean that an action has absolutely no value at all. Impossible right? How can something be neither moral nor immoral? In the moq this is absurd. Since all reality is made up of value everything must be good to some extent as in Pirsigs levels. I think the word amoral has a connotation of being outside a human oriented framework of right and wrong. An amoral act is an act of the highest quality in tune with how Pirsig describes Varuna in "Lila", I'm not going to quote from it I'm sure you all no where it is. Linguistically this ties in I think too. Look at the word Varuna, maybe you need to say it. The va sound is the dominant feature, bear in mind I know next to nothing about linguistics, and as Pirsig says this is often a good starting point. When spoken the 'v' sound is less dominant than the 'a' sound, what we might hear is only the 'a' if we were li
stening to a foreign pronunciation. This may seem like a tangled web but look where it leads. The concept of varuna is right throughout our modern languages e.g. amoral, valhalla in norse legend, agathos in Greek "good' and in our very own arete, the Greeks often put an 'a' in front of words. Even value itself relates to varuna. Look up all the words in the dictionary starting with va and have a look at there meanings and see the common thread. There are others. To me it looks like at one time everyone new what amoral meant, it was the dominant philosophy of a large part of the early civilisations. If anyone thinks they can add to this I'd be interested.
p.s. I'm new to computers, the internet and discussion groups, my apologies for any stuff-ups and also if this subject has been aired before.
Cheers
Marc
end
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:53 BST