Greetings,
CORY:
"Are we not getting back to substance and form with this argument? What is
going on here?!"
That was my point Cory. Sorry, I thought I had been clear.
CORY:
"You are both suggesting that we use conventional morality to explain Robert
Pirsig's MoQ. In his metaphysics there is only one perceived evil, exclusive
stasis. Good and bad are concepts arising from one conventional moral code
but we take them to mean everything and would continue to do so if we put
those concepts back into the MoQ."
On the contrary, I am suggesting that we must use the MoQ to explain 'conventional morality'
(whatever that is), in the form of good and bad. Pirsig does this repeatedly throughout Lila, but
not to my satisfaction, hence I look for clarification. I do not seek to do what you suggest and
would not be here if I did. The whole of the book is about good and bad. Lila is after all, 'an
inquiry into morals,' and if you remove morals (good and bad) from it you leave only a nice(ish)
story.
CORY:
"Good is implied in ideas. When we first have an idea we have no clue if it
is a good idea or a bad idea. Only in retrospection is that idea determined
as good or bad. That is intellectualizing."
This is simply not right. We intuit whether an idea is good or bad immediately. We sense quality. A
quick reference to Pirsig's experiment with his students where they evaluated peers' essays (which
started his quest for the good) should be enough to dispose of that particular red herring. I
appreciate that one could argue your case, but it is entirely contrary to Pirsig's position which is
the 'frame of reference' I am working in when asking this question.
CORY:
"Good and bad are conventional frames of references."
Once again I suggest that good and bad are inextricably tied in with morality and that Lila is,
after all, an inquiry into morals. The 'frame of reference' is 100% MoQ and by seeking to remove it
I suspect you miss the fundamental point of the exercise. Your example of the autistic man is odd
because you leap from good and bad ideas to just good and bad for no apparent reason, so it is hard
to know what exactly you mean here. My only comment would be to point out that good and bad are just
as real for the autistic as they are for you and I, whether he perceives them or not!! If you wish
to locate good and bad only in human perception then I suggest you re-read the chapter in Lila where
the various moral codes are outlined. Human morality is not the only morality. Sorry if that didn't
address your particular point, but what you wrote conflates a number of different issues and terms
and I'm not sure which point was intended.
CORY:
"As I understand it, Pirsig tells us in his various writings that he
considers subject/object thought as deterministically separating our bodies
from the rest of our environment. From this subjective base one is able to
objectify all objects. Call them good and bad. Which, as I said, you both
seem to be suggesting that we do in our mutual attempts at furthering our
understanding of the MoQ."
So when John Wooden Leg says that his dog is a good dog he is thinking along SO lines? Well it is a
new approach I suppose. cf. my first paragraph. (How does one objectify an object by the way?)
CORY:
"I disagree. And I am surprised at you both. This is indeed very superficial.
I've come to expect more from you."
Well, only because you don't (from the evidence of your last posting) see the MoQ as an inquiry into
morality as Pirsig does, but instead seek to reduce good to a conventional frame of reference - a
position that can easily be shown to reduce to relativism and possibly even subjectivism. What a
come down for a great project. I don't see that your position coincides with the MoQ in any way.
This idea that good and bad are merely concepts, immediately impales you on the sharper of the two
horns. Care to extricate yourself?
As an aside to the rest of the group, I was sorry to see that John's excellent angle on this issue
was never addressed and am wondering if these meta-ethical ponderings are seen as irrelevant by the
rest of the squad. For me they are vital, but the few responses received, to a greater or lesser
extent, see the issue as superficial (Cory included) or somehow irrelevant. Is this a lack of
understanding or can someone explain to me precisely why they see it as superficial. Is it a
condition of membership here that one doesn't question the fundamental assumptions (i.e. indulge in
metaphysics) of one's beliefs or am I missing something? From where I stand this is a huge gaping
hole in the armour of the MoQ, but I feel a little bit like Nietzsche's madman who wanders into the
market asking where God is. Is he really dead?
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST