ROGER IS STILL INTERESTED IN TALKING
DAVID B WROTE:
Roger, I resent your assertion that I
"conveniently dismissed everything" you said with mere labels. I worked
very, very hard to dismiss everything you said. There was nothing easy
about it. Ba Dump Bump. :) But seriously, your response to this "moral
compass" issue illustrates the problem with you position. It renders the
MOQ mute and obsolete.
ROGER:
When and where did I render the MOQ mute and obsolete? I praised it as a
method....no? ( I really like DLT's foundation analogy too)
DAVID B:
How can you think that Pirsig's "inquiry into
morals" comes to the conclusion that we can not solve moral dilemmas?
How can a description of a completely moral universe leave us in such a
mysterious moral vaccuum. We could go round and round about the
nuts-n-bolts and debate fine points for the rest of time, but the fact
remains that you vision of the MOQ doesn't seem to work as a explanatory
tool.
ROGER:
We can solve moral dilemmas, but our solutions are to be viewed dynamically.
Our map and our best path across the terrain change as the dynamic universe
changes around and with us. What moral vacuum is it that I have left you in?
Are you sure I was the one driving? (Be sure to read yesterday's whole
post.
DAVID B:
In spite of your invocations of pragmatism, that solipsitic dog
don't hunt. Its not that I don't love you anymore. We just disagree.
ROGER:
What solipsistic dog? What is it about my use of that Pirsig quote that you
disagree with? Please respond to me, or the quote, not to labels, especially
ones which don't reflect my views. You are arguing with yourself, David. You
and Platt are calling me something that I disagree with and not even looking
beyond your static models. It's frustrating.
PLATT:
I stumbled when you quoted a statement by Pirsig where he used
the "categories" of "pragmatism" and "instrumentalism"--a
statement about which you said, "I concur ...completely" after
beating up on me and others for the sin of "categorizing." Still,
while I may have contributed to the deterioration of this site (for
which I apologize), I'm sincerely glad you've rejoined the
discussion. Believe it or not, I've always looked forward to your
posts.
ROGER:
You are still my hero. However, there is a big difference for me or RMP to
reference what we agree we believe, and for someone else to misclassify us
and then dismiss us with arguments that don't represent what we believe.
David does it by dismissing me as a solipsistic, and now you have started it
with calling me a moral relativist. And for the record, I accused myself as
being as guilty of mislabeling as others.
But yes, I am suggesting we try to avoid excessively static labels that
misrepresent the other. Point out how my opinion seems to be like Moral
Relativism and I will point out where I agree and disagree. Don't give up on
me Platt....... I always treasure you for your open-mindedness.
Roger
PS -- The posts by everybody lately have been wonderful. I would respond to
so many more, but it would just be to comment on how insightful I found them.
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