From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 22:56:38 GMT
Hi Platt, (Matt, Magnus)), and all,
I've been lurking in the background, pleased to see newcomers coming in and
asking good questions, but mostly distressed to see many large
"contributions" that appear to serve mostly the poster's ego.
I struggled through one of those posts to its end where the writer signed
off "Thanks for your time, assholes." Frankly, the writer doesn't deserve
my time.
Let me thus restrict this post to an issue Platt brings up:
> In Chapter 13 of Lila, Pirsig writes:
>
> "But what's not so obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics
> of Quality, it is absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer
the
> patient. . . ."[snip]
Platt adds:
> If that's not claiming the MOQ is scientific it comes mighty close. Also,
> note Pirsig's endorsement of absolute truth, "good for all people at all
> times, now and forever." Such endorsement is likely to give apoplexy to
> some on this site who believe with a kind of religious fanaticism that
> there are no absolutes, especially moral ones. (-:
>
Jonathan says:
Pirsig is doing his cause a disservice by painting things so black and
white, and Platt exaggerates the problem. Let me borrow Matt's word
"contextualize". IMO opinion, any "absolute" statement, such as Pirsig's one
about the doctor can be contextualized so that it or its consequences become
incorrect. I will illusrate the point by looking at patient/germ example in
specific contexts. I assume that Pirsig is stating the obvious that the
doctor must try to kill the germ to save the patient (the consequential
statement). However, in the real world, it is not necessarily simple or
painless to eradicate the germ. Sometimes, the treatment may expose the
patient to extreme suffering with a poor chance of success. In this case,
the doctor may decide not to kill the germ and not to save the patient.
Thus the consequential statement is incorrect - it is not always better to
try and kill the germ.
Sorry Platt, but I can think of no specific consequence of Pirsig's
statement about patient vs. germ morality that would ALWAYS be valid
ABSOLUTELY, in all contexts.
What Pirsig has inadvertantly done is take a Quality concept (the doctor
must do his BEST for the patient), and put it into dialectic terms (patient
vs. germ). I am saddened to see him do this over and over again throughout
Lila. It is okay to use dialectics to make up some rules of the game, but as
soon as you try and carve those rules in stone, the rules may shatter.
Magnus, said something very similar about the formulas and axioms of
science. Magnus and I both recognise the damage that can be done by falling
stones and other heavy objects, especially if you don't get your feet out of
the way ;-).
Take care all,
Jonathan
Jonathan
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 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 03:03:31 GMT