From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 16:52:43 GMT
Platt, Joe, Mark, (and all),
A long response in response to your several similar specific questions ...
Joe- "Lila's Child ?"
(Each and every clause prefixed with IMHO, natch ...)
I've made no secret that ...
For me the jury is still out on this (laudable and interesting) exercise,
because the jury is still out on Lila itself.
For me, Lila has welcome additional exposure of the MoQ, and in particular
all the illustrative examples around Lila's own Quality.
It also has excellent additional background as to Pirsig's (Vedic and
Jamesian) origins of the MoQ, and his thought processes for arriving at it.
It's also a great work of dramatic narrative as a vehicle for the above.
I love the book.
As for the MoQ itself, if I may generalise, Lila adds little but unnecessary
complication.
(Driven by a perceived need need to satisfy "serious" philosopher peers many
seem to reckon, and the ubiquitous US god-squad IMHO.)
So for me, I felt (your choice of word) seduction was perhaps Pirsig's
motive for involvement in this.
Joe / Platt / Mark - "Better ?"
Higher Quality, what else ?
Platt - "On what basis a better ethical standard ?"
The MoQ, what else ?
Platt - "Some agreed upon ethical standard ?"
The MoQ again, what else ? BUT please note ...
As Mark says - "I don't think [anyone or anything] should be in the business
of setting and enforcing moral or religious standards AT ALL."
The MoQ is a framework for judging and evaluating relative values and
ethics, not a fixed standard - that would be a Static Quality imposed on the
whole framework.
As you say yourself Platt, quoting Robert "To put philosophy in the service
of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of
evolution trying to devour a higher one." This is as true of the MoQ as any
other basis of values. This is where Lila goes off the rails IMHO -
suggesting MoQ is some axiomatic metaphysics. There is nothing fixed about
MoQ other than its (evolutionary) shape. A good, wise, common-sense,
empirical (true) basis for evaulating relative values, not a fixed set of
values. There is no bootstrap here - get used to it.
Joe - "God and science better ?"
They cannot be better than themselves.
I'm saying MoQ is (generally) better than either or both.
Mark - "Better science / MoQ science - a thousand times ?"
Yep OK, as I've agreed before. If you must call it a science. I prefer
Quality.
Science has its place. My actual words were
"dismissive of science IN THIS DOMAIN"
In the domain of war and terrorism, science is about as much use as a
chocolate fireguard, unless you're analysing the ballistics of an individual
mortar fired from Fallujah. Life's more complicated than that.
Joe - "Crises coming ?"
Oh yes, inevitably.
As William Barret (James biographer) said in 1958,
"Man is willing to learn about himself only after some disaster. What he
learns has **ALWAYS** been there [and] it is no less true for having come
out of a period of chaos and disaster." Spreading the word about the MoQ is
unliklely to prevent crises, but it is likely to cushion the downside, and
ensure the right (Quality) lessons are learned, rather than pat science- (or
worse, god-) based rationalisations of "what went wrong". (My main motive
for studying MoQ incidentally, in a management context.). On a grander
scale, descent into war is more bad kharma than divine retribution or any
direct causal relation to one bullet aimed at Archduke Ferdinand. The UN and
Nato and EEC resulted in "less war" in Europe since 1945 because people
agreed it was a good idea, not because of science or god.
Getting there, I feel.
Arrogance 7 : Rationale 0
Regards
Ian.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau@sbcglobal.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: MD Time Out - Source of Truth ?
> 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
>
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 : Sat Nov 20 2004 - 16:55:45 GMT