Dear David B. Platt and other MD friends.
(I started this post yesterday, and then took a Sabbath break.
I've just looked through some interesting offerings by Platt, Glove and
Ken; alas most of my posting was written before I received them. I've
restricted myself to a very minor subsequent additions.)
David B.
> Robert Pirsig wrote:
> "In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
> things being equal. that choice which is more dynamic, that is, at a
> higher level of evolution is more moral."
Let's hold on to that till later....
[snip]
> David B. writes:
> The Pirsig quote is pretty central to the MOQ, don't you think? I'd
> assumed that everyone understands the idea behind it and that our
> discussions proceeded forward from that point. Its pretty
disappointing
> that there is so much disagreement about something so essential and
> fundamental. I thought everyone understood and accepted the basic
> outlines of the MOQ ...
The last person to write like that was Bodvar, who has now (sadly)
confined his activities to the moderated forum. David, I know you got a
lot of flack, but it is highly arrogant of you to suggest that anyone
who disagrees with you understands the MoQ less well than you do. As for
the last sentence, "understand and accept the basic outlines of the MoQ"
... fine, but understand it as what? I understand and accept the MoQ to
be Pirsig's world view. I largely agree with those view, but my own
views are not 100 per cent in agreement. Is there anyone among us who
completely agrees with all Pirsig's opinions?
>...and viewed it as a MORAL COMPASS.
Now this innocent looking tack on to the last sentence is highly
significant. I have made it clear why I don't find the MoQ useful as a
moral compass. It does serve as a pretty good map, but a map doesn't
tell you which direction is "best".
Sat. update - PLATT professes the same sentiment with this:
>Pirsig's moral compass comes with directions
>that tells us to follow a course that's Dynamic, but
>the needle in the compass can't tell us in
>which direction the Dynamic lies until after we get there.
DAVID B.
> To be frank, I
> don't see why anyone would spend time in this forum if they don't even
> agree with the main features of the MOQ.
> It's kinda like an atheist going to divinity school, isn't it? (NO, I
> don't think the MOQ is a religion, its just an analogy. Please don't
let
> it prevent you from getting the point.)
I think that most of us see Pirsig in a positive light, but I don't
think
this forum should constitute a RMP fan club.
I personally welcome the dissent.
> [snip]
> Are we not philosophers? I'm
> begging you to re-read that Sunday post now that the heat has died
down.
> It represents many hours of work.
Been there, done that - reread all 3 posts from Sunday. David, I am sure
that you invest time and effort into your posts, as many of us do. But
please don't use that as a measure of excellence. To make the point
crudely, I bet that Hitler spent even more time and effort on Mein
Kampf.
If you will now do me the courtesy of going back over my responses to
you, you will see exactly why I disagree with you.
David B.
>I can't cash compliments at the
> bank any more than the insults. (If I had a buck for every personal
> remark, I'd be rich.) But all I want is a discussion. That's why we're
> here, right? You can hate me if it turns you on, but please look again
> at the ideas in that post. ...But knowing the difference between
> social and intellecual values is the key to understanding much more
> subtle kinds of morality.
David, sorry if you feel insulted - everything I myself said in
criticism was in the interests of the discussion. My specific charge
was as I summarized it a month ago:-
JONATHAN (11th October)
> If you look back over the A-bomb
> exchange, I accused David B. of conveniently
> condemning as "social level"
> any opinion he disagreed with.
David, that charge still stands. If you want me to revise that opinion,
you will have to address the point.
Let me close with that bit I saved, about the "more dynamic" being more
moral. It is certainly more dynamic to be open-minded about philosophy
than to cling rigidly to the MoQ as presented by Robert M. Pirsig.
Why then does David berate people for not having "... accepted the basic
outlines of the MOQ".
Am I to understand that he has another yardstick to judge people by?
(That's fine by me, I always knew he did).
PLATT's latest post raises questions about that yardstick:
>Still, I'm far from satisfied with the alternative proposed by Jonathan
>and others about relying on man's innate moral sense to guide us,
>the problem being how to explain Mao, Stalin, and Hitler not to
>mention Ghengis Kahn, Caligula and the priests of the Spanish
>Inquisition.
That's a fair objection Platt, and one that I think worth pursuing.
I am going to stand by that "innate moral sense", but accept the
challenge of explaining how it sometimes fails to prevent evil. That's
not for this post - I need more time to think about how to present it.
Have a nice week all,
Jonathan
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 - 16:03:14 BST