From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 19:02:20 GMT
On 19 November 2004 5:26 AM Ian writes to Platt and all:
[Ian] Whilst the discussion board is debating massively complex issues like
the
morality of decisions in war and terorrism, I withdrew and made my comments
about being (scornfully) dismissive of those MoQ'ers who hung onto bringing
"God" into [any] debate. (Hopefully you'll notice I'm equally dismissive of
science in this domain, despite my repeated defence of evolution as an
idea.)
Hi Ian, Platt and all,
I want to praise Dan Glover to the skies for publishing Lila's Child. He
organized it and chose what posts to include. He seduced Pirsig into further
comments. On What basis? A better explanation! Quality is a better
explanation than the split between subject/object. Even such cockamamy
statements like "Quality has Lila" is an attempt to provide a better
explanation.
Ian, I am curious! In your above posting you imply that 'God' and 'science'
are not 'better explanations'. What is the sense of a 'better explanation'
that you share with Robert and Dan? The sense that you are looking for
better explanations and will know them when you see them?. Do you see crises
coming? Do we have time? Why explain anything?
Does Chin make sense when he adds to Pirsig: "Quality is 'Good.' Good is a
noun. Good is still good whether it be scientific, mystic, or religious
(screw political:)"?
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:56 AM
Subject: MD Time Out - Source of Truth ?
> Platt and all,
>
> Plat said
> "What source of morality should [the nation] rely on until the MOQ is as
> widely known and believed as religious moral teaching?"
>
> [Which nation would that be ? .... :-) .... anyway, I digress.]
>
> Whilst the discussion board is debating massively complex issues like the
> morality of decisions in war and terorrism, I withdrew and made my
> comments
> about being (scornfully) dismissive of those MoQ'ers who hung onto
> bringing
> "God" into [any] debate. (Hopefully you'll notice I'm equally dismissive
> of
> science in this domain, despite my repeated defence of evolution as an
> idea.)
>
> I see Mark took it in the neck big-time for taking a similar anti-god line
> (given moral encouragement by myself it has to be said - arrogance rules,
> OK.)
>
> Platt, you make my point ...
>
> In the absence of MoQ, it is understandable that people cling onto what I
> previously called "ancient dumb-ass ideas like god and science" and find
> themselves in the interminable binary debate about right / truth and
> wrong.
> What you seem to be saying is that until MoQ is universally democratically
> adopted by (most of) the worlds culture, we must continue to defend god /
> religious moral teaching as the least-bad source of truth ?
>
> I'm sorry Platt, but if we MoQ'ers are not prepared to defend and promote
> the MoQ, what chance has the MoQ of ever being seen as the better source
> of
> truth ? This is why I have been "speechless" (nay, read "apoplectic") to
> find MoQ'ers invoking god in their arguments.
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>
> (PS 1 - This is very close to my Catch-22 / Political Correctness point -
> we
> need to have the courage of our convictions to drop the habit of using god
> (or science) to support our arguments, just because it is the
> "prevailing" -
> politically correct - way of doing things. Better to be branded "arrogant"
> and dismissive of 3500 years of culture, than to follow Bob into the
> asylum.
> Let's not go there.)
>
> (PS 2 - Lets' not brand MoQ as "religious moral teaching". Like Zen, it is
> a
> non-mystical "philosophical framework" for a better life.)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:00 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
>
>
>> Simon:
>>
>> > >Washington answers the question, "What is the proper source of
>> > >morality
>> > >for a nation?"
>> > >
>> > >I wonder what your answer might be.
>> >
>> > There is a novel called "Lila: An Inquiry into Morals" which provides a
>> > rather nice discussion about the source of morality.
>>
>> Quite so. But That was
>> my thought behind the question. If I failed to make that clear, I
>> apologize.
>>
>> Platt
>>
>> P.S. Notice that the knee-jerk response so far has been to launch an ad
>> hominem attack on Washington rather than seriously address the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 19:07:53 GMT