From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 11:46:12 BST
Hi DMB, Chris,
> dmb says:
> Instrumentalist justification? I think its essentially a moral
> justification.
'Instrumentalist' is a technical term in moral philosophy, I guess you're unfamiliar with that sort
of thing. But you give a good example a bit later on:
> dmb says:
> Pirsig
> is isn't saying that math formulas are more important than people, he's
> saying that, as far as static patterns go, intellect is worth preserving
> above all BECAUSE of the way they serve and enhance LIFE as we know it.
In other words, the intellect gains value as it is instrumental in preserving life etc, it has no
value in itself (your presentation of Pirsig's argument, which I think is an inaccurate
representation of his view, but it's a clear example. I think Pirsig would say that intellect has
value as SQ, ie it is not instrumentally good).
My point is that the standard MoQ has no locus of value corresponding to people as such, therefore
people (whether they exist or not in the MoQ) are of only indirect concern - what is of value is the
IDEA. I'm not sure you've grasped my point here.
>
> It seems to me that if we followed the logic of Sam's interpretaton all the
> way through to the end, we might conclude that the MOQ supports a genocide
> against all the stupid people.
Please do explain why the MoQ would see this as a bad thing (starting from the axiom that 'stupid
people' are incapable of generating positive value in fourth level SQ and overall DQ terms). The
more I ponder this the more I think it is a major problem for the MoQ. But as you know, I've gone
into elements of this before.
> And a final question. Mark Twain defines faith as "believing what ya know
> ain't so." And the bible describes it as "the assurance of things hoped for,
> the conviction of things not seen."(Hebrews 11:1) What's the difference
> these and Pirsig's description of faith as "a willingness to believe
> falsehoods"?
See my post to Erin for a substantive answer. Twain's definition is a reaction against what might be
called the theology of Conservative Reformed American Protestantism - CRAP theology for short. He
and Pirsig share a set of SQ cultural filters which is common in the US for specific historical
reasons (you wear the same pair of glasses too) but it doesn't have much relation to historic or
worldwide Christianity.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Oct 25 2004 - 12:11:04 BST