> -----Original Message-----
> From: Platt Holden [SMTP:pholden5@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 1999 10:30 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Life Ain't Nothing but Money and Bitches
>
> DMB responds to Platt's part of the conversation between he and Jon.
> Hope that's not too confusing...
>
> PLATT:
> Good point. The more responses I see to the question of whether
> the MOQ can be used as a moral guide, the more convinced I
> become that in terms of helping us make ratonal moral decisions
> on a wide range of issues, it flunks. Ayn Rand did a much better
> job in that regard, even if her initial premises ignored certain key
> characteristics of human nature. I think Bruce is right in saying that
>
> the MOQ works a lot better when there are conflicts between levels
> than when there are conflicts between different groups of people.
>
> PIRSIG:
> "It was tempting to take all the moral conflicts of the world and, one
> by one, see how they fit this kind of analysis, but Phaedrus realized
> that if he started to get into that he'd never finish. Wherever he
> looked, whatever examples came to mind, he ALWAYS SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO
> LAY THEM OUT WITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK, and the nature of the conflicts
> usually seemed clearer when he did so."
>
> DMB:
> I don't think the MOQ flunks the test. Nothing personal here Platt,
> but I think you're the flunker in this case. Is that a word, flunker?
> Ayn Rand as a better moral philosopher? Yuk. I think of her as an
> amoral slut, a neurotic ego-maniac and it really shows in her
> thinking. I'm a little embarrassed each time she is mentioned. Her
> "Objectivism" is opposite of Pirsig in lots of ways. It really does
> fit into the MOQ, except as a symptom of the SOM loneliness and
> isolation that Pirsig tries to cure.
>
> PLATT:
> The other option I suggested was "your feelings, " or as Jack
> wrote, "Watching someone suffer just plain feels bad." I'm sure
> you see the problems with using this as the basis for morality.
> Whose feelings are we to follow? Why are not mine as valid as
> yours? Who's to say?
>
> DMB:
> Here too you seem to be making one of those assertions that Pirsig
> finds so troubling? You're essentially dismissing Jon on the charge
> that its only his "feelings". This is the same as saying it's just
> "subjective". Clearly this is the problem that the MOQ is supposed to
> solve, but here it is, as if Pirsig didn't write a whole book
> explaining the problems with dismissing morals as subjective.
>
> PLATT:
> II think David Lind's post of 12 Dec. on the value of suffering is
> persuasive. Also, Xcto's comment about Ayn Rand applies. Read
> the speech by John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged" to see cogent
> arguments for the virtue of selfishness.
>
> DMB:
> John Galt was an architect, eh? Could you be too fond of Rand because
> she flatters you? Just a thought. Again, I think her books are
> essentially contrary to Pirsig's vision. To portray selfishness as
> moral and compassion as evil is just so mixed up. Sorry, but I can't
> respect such notions. It seems irrational and there is a cruelty in
> it.
>
> PLATT
> One person's "outrage" cannot be a basis for a universal morality
> for the reason noted above. One man's outrage is another man's
> good deed.
>
> DMB:
> OK, sure. One person's outrage is not enough for a basis, but its a
> damn good start. Think of the good things that have come from moral
> "outrage". Martin Luther was pissed. Jesus tore the place up. John
> Brown was very high-decible fanatic. Rosa Parks was angry about
> injustice. The founders of this country were outraged at King George.
> I could list the pissed all day long. I love those guys. They make the
> world turn. Get on board!
>
> PLATT:
> Whether or not you can rationally support your views may be
> besides the point in your eyes. But throughout history those
> dedicated to "doing good" have on occasion down great harm.
> "Enabling" an alcoholic, as David Lind described, is a case in
> point. And on a global scale, think of the horrors perpetrated in the
> name of "helping others." To relieve eternal suffering in hell was,
> after all, the goal of the Spanish Inquistion. If truth be known, we
> really don't know how to help others without being arrogant (I know
> what's best for you) (I can foresee consequences) and without
> risking the creation of dependency.
>
> PLATT:
> I know these arguments won't change your mind nor should they.
> What frightens me, though, is the tendency of those who are
> passionate with moral certainity to want to impose, by force of law
> if necessary, their views on others. I'm not accusing you of having
> such a desire, but would you agree that we should be wary of the
> rigidly righteous, even if we agree with them?
>
> PIRSIG:
> "This is not just some arbitrary social convernion that should applay
> to some doctors butr not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not
> all cultures. It's true for all people at all time, now and forever, a
> moral pattern of reality as real as H2O. We're at last dealing with
> morals on the basis of reason. We can now deduce codes based on
> evolution that analyze morral arguments with greater precision than
> ever before."
>
> DMB:
> Impose their will by force of law? That's the most bizzare straw man
> I've ever seen. Such a thing isn't even possible and society's control
> of intellect is certainly considered immoral in the MOQ. Are you
> suggesting that Pirsig's sense of clarity and precision is somehow
> tyrannical? Are you suggesting that Pirsig's desire to inform and
> persuade is to be written off as arrogant?
>
> Platt, to be perfectly frank, it seems most of your instincts,
> attitudes and beliefs are contrary to the MOQ. Looking out for number
> one is not what saved the Captain. His only moral act resulted in the
> loss of respect from Rigel, but it probably saved Lila's life and as
> Pirsig describes it, improved the whole world, not just himself. That
> single "un-selfish" act is the focal point of the book in a very real
> sense. Ayn Rand he ain't.
>
> And yes, we have to accept the fact that suffering is a part of life,
> but that ought not be construed to mean that we are relieved of moral
> responsibility. It doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to
> suffering. In his analysis of the civil war Pirsig clearly puts human
> equality at the highest reaches of his moral universe. "...and the
> principle of human equality is an even higher form than a nation. John
> Brown's truth was never an abstraction. It still keeps marching on."
>
> This undoubtedly seems like harsh criticism, but I find these
> assertion pretty "outrageous" and I'm being as nice about my
> objections as I can be. I mean, I'm trying to pull my punches in the
> name of civility, but just can't hide the passion. Please forgive me,
> forget about what I jerk I am, and hear the points being made. Please.
>
> DMB
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 - 16:03:16 BST