From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 21:59:02 GMT
Dear David B.,
You wrote 1 Dec 2002 17:02:22 -0700:
'I can see how the two quotes [in which Pirsig answers the question "Does
Lila have Quality?" in different ways, see my posting of 1 Dec 2002 23:06:27
+0100] might seem contradictory, but its not really such a problem. I think
the first one is expressed in such unusual terms that it would just be too
awkward and clumsy to persist in that kind of language. ... speak in normal
and conventional terms ... is all Pirsig has done in the second quote and
throughout most of the book.'
You agreed that 'a person is part of patterns of value on different levels'
is more accurate than 'is composed of static patterns of value on different
levels', but too cumbersome. 'We can't afford to assert our metaphysical
assumptions in every sentence.'
Aren't you afraid of re-introducing SOM under the guise of 'speaking MoQish
in normal and conventional terms'? If we don't assert our metaphysical
assumptions in every sentence (by creating a new language that is
sufficiently different from 'normal and conventional' usage), aren't we then
implicitly asserting SOM metaphysical assumptions in every sentence and
undermining Pirsig's project?
You don't agree that 'stating that anyone could NOT have access to
intellectual quality (whereas others have) would justify unequal rights',
because we are unequal anyway. ('I don't think egalitarianism was ever meant
to
imply that every person is of equal ability or that everyone has the same
attributes.') You add that it is POTENTIAL abilities rather than ACTUAL
abilities that found equal rights. ('Then there is the matter of actual
ability as compared to potential ability. We'd hope that Lila could grow,
but no promises can be made.')
A respectable position, but (again) I hope you realise the risks. Given the
fact that egalitarianism (equal rights) is not undisputed, even on this
list, people might want to convince you that people do/should NOT have equal
rights. They might ask if you agree that children have less rights than
adults and why. Obviously (in MoQ terms) because they do not (fully)
participate in intellectual patterns of value. They WILL probably grow, Lila
MAY grow (probably not). Why not grant equal rights only after people have
proved to have realized that potential (like -more or less- children)?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 22:17:07 GMT