ROGER RESPONDS TO PLATT AND MINI-FLAMES
HALF HIS ONLINE FRIENDS AND HIMSELF
PLATT WROTE:
Sounds to me like you believe Pirsig offers us a method based on
moral relativism which says there are no universal codes of right or
wrong. Every ethical situation is unique and that ethical problems
should only be solved temporarily on a case by case basis, taking
into account as many relevant factors as possible including the
involved person’s or persons’ sex, race, ethnic, cultural, family and
educational background, and whatever else might comprise “a
thousand different directions.” In other words, be flexible, stay
loose and above all, avoid fixed judgments.......
As I pointed out in a previous post, relativism or contextualism are
legitimate moral positions, especially popular and promoted in
academe. So if I’ve interpreted you correctly and that is essentially
your position, you have plenty of learned company.
ROGER:
I have basically lost interest in the MOQ Forum over the past few months
because I felt I was no longer growing through the interaction, and that
others were caught in similar static perceptual prisons. In September's
discussion, Bo and David B and David T basically were unable to respond to my
ideas or my points. Instead, they bottled me into their preconceived notions
of an Idealist and conveniently dismissed everything I said or every
Pirsigian reference I provided. I vaguely remember some of us doing the same
to Donny over a year ago. I did something similar to Rob last summer, and
now I welcome you to the club, Platt.
We are no longer talking to each other . We are categorizing each other and
living our static traps. [Note that I am doing it RIGHT NOW!! ]
Please respond to ME and not to your notions of Moral Relatavism. I will try
to do the same as below....
PLATT:
I’m sure you see the irony in applying a fixed “dynamic”
methodology to moral issues and realize the self-contradiction in
the idea that when it comes to ethical questions, nothing is certain.
And, despite your protestations, I suspect you indeed use some
fixed guidelines in making moral decisions. For example, you imply
that “what works” is better than what doesn’t, that what has “proved
successful” is better than what hasn’t, that “new opportunities” are
better than none and that “maximizing value” is better than letting
sleeping dogs lie. Further, I suspect, even if you haven’t stated or
implied it, that an important moral guideline you use in your
methodology is concern for the well-being of others. I suspect you
use that guideline when you “intuit” whether value has been
maximized.
ROGER:
Yes, I do use models and guides and past experience. But as in the MOQ,
everything should be taken provisionally. As we discovered in the October
1998 topic on morality, the MOQ does not work all that great as a static
moral guide (and Horse and Walter and I were the final hold outs that
month.....most Lilacs bailed out by the 2nd week......REMEMBER?)
PLATT:
As I pointed out in a previous post, relativism or contextualism are
legitimate moral positions, especially popular and promoted in
academe. So if I’ve interpreted you correctly and that is essentially
your position, you have plenty of learned company. But, I don’t
think that’s Pirsig’s position. He proposes a fixed, universal moral
structure in which intellect is morally superior to society, society to
biology—well, you know the drill. Using that structure, he makes a
number of hard and fast moral assertions, e.g., the civil war was
moral.
ROGER:
Lila last page of Chapter 29: "The MOQ is a continuation of the mainstream
20th Century American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of
instrumentalism, which says the test of the true is the good. It adds that
this good is not a social code or some type of intellectual Hegelian
Absolute. It is direct everyday experience." I concur with this statement
completely.
PLATT:
In any case, thanks for your response to the question whether the
MOQ can be used as a moral compass in real world situations and
if so, how. And if I’ve gone astray in interpreting your position,
please don’t hesitate to show the error of my ways.
ROGER:
Reread what I wrote below if you could please. Tell me how it differs from
the quote from Lila. Better yet how does it differ (or not) from your hated
Relatavism.
Platt, I think very highly of you and the rest of the Squad. Sometimes I
find it sad what we have deteriorated to though. No, not We....what "I "have
deteriorated to.
But I could be wrong,
Roger
MY OLD POST:
I think the efforts to define a moral compass or apply it to real world
solutions seems caught in the static truth trap. The problem with
solving the moral dilemma is that to define the dilemma we first
objectify it and build static models of it. We then apply some static
solution to a static problem.
The MOQ approach is to continuously redefine and undefine the
problem. Approach it from a thousands directions and apply a
thousand and one solutions. Test these, retest. Redefine the
problem. Keep what works, throw out what doesn’t. Every once in a
while try out what already proved unsuccessful and see if the
problem has now given you new opportunities to try new twists on
the old. And tomorrow, as you wake, intuit whether value has been
maximized. You will find it hasn’t, so it is time to start anew.
Sorry if this seems flippant, but this really is my take on the issue.
The MOQ doesn’t so much offer solutions as it offers a method.
And that method itself is dynamic….as someone else already
said….it is lot like a real compass.
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 - 16:03:15 BST