From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 17 2004 - 05:02:15 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ
>Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:11:21 -0000
>
>Hi Platt, MSH, Erin, Chuck, Dan, DM and DMB, with thanks for all the
>comments.
>
>Contrary to what DMB assumes I am genuinely interested in this question,
>and not just looking for a
>stick to beat the MoQ over the head with. If I can be persuaded that the
>MoQ does in fact allocate
>value to people as such, then that will be a significant step forward in my
>understanding of it, and
>that is a good thing. So in this post I am going to try and give as clear
>an account as I can of
>what I see as the problem, and then run through some of the recent replies.
>
>Dan commented: "There seems an assumption behind the question that we
>(people) in some way give
>(assign) objects (people, in this case) value. I think the MOQ finds this
>assumption faulty. The MOQ
>says that people are the patterns, and that patterns are value. So it seems
>to me the MOQ doesn't
>give value to people, but rather the MOQ says that people ARE value."
>
>Sam:
>I don't think this is true as a description of my question, nor of the MoQ.
Hi Sam
From: A Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality by
Anthony McWatt:
‘LILA was originally conceived of as a case-book in philosophy. “Does Lila
have Quality?” is its central question. It was intended to parallel the
ancient Rinzai Zen koans (which literally means “public cases,”) and in
particular, Joshu’s “Mu,” which asks, “Does a dog have a Buddha nature?”.’
(Pirsig 2002d)
Your question is the same question RMP builds LILA around: Does Lila have
Quality? Do people have value? After some hemming and hawing, RMP decides
Lila doesn't have Quality, Quality has Lila. Is this true?
>Pirsig is quite happy
>for the attribution of value to be carried out - surely that's the whole
>point of claiming that
>morality is now on a scientific footing? -
No. But I see our disagreement is on such a level that there's no sense
going on; we'd be going in circles. I'm dizzy enough.
>and it is merely a useful form of language. It is not
>that we generate the value by our description, but that we recognise the
>value which is present, in
>its static and dynamic aspects.
This is wrong. I urge you to rethink it.
Furthermore, where does it say that 'people are value'? I thought
>Pirsig said a) people are agglomerations of patterns of value; b) those
>patterns can be separately
>described; and c) the value of a 'person' is an illusion. Have I misread
>him?
Misinterpreted, IMO. The MOQ subscribes to the notion that man is the
MEASURE of all things. It doesn't subscribe to man is the MEASURER of all
things. I'd say that's where our differences begin.
Anyway, I enjoy reading your posts even though I don't always agree with
you.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
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 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 05:05:30 GMT