Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Sat Dec 18 2004 - 03:46:59 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Understanding Quality And Power"

    Sam)"But the idealist will teach his children the word 'chair' after all,
    for of course he wants to
    teach them to do this or do that, eg to fetch a chair. Then where will be
    the difference between
    what the idealist-educated children say and the realist ones? Won't the
    difference only be one of
    battle-cry?"

    (Wittgenstein, Zettel, paras 413 & 414)

    The whole idealist/realist debate is a product of subject-object
    metaphysics, which we need to let
    go of. The more Pirsig says that the MoQ is a type of idealism, the more he
    regresses from his
    foundational insights.

    Hi Sam,

    "Then where will be the difference between
    what the idealist-educated children say and the realist ones? Won't the
    difference only be one of
    battle-cry?"

    A "battle-cry" from the realist who do not understand(?) As the idealist are
    educated in both fields, would they not benefit as would those who do not
    deny S/O but master it as well as leave themselves open to the 'Idealist'
    DQ?

    S + O + V = SQ + DQ
    (V - Value)

    There's another 'ism' for you to define;

    Idealism = Value

    Chin

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:49 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

    > Hi all,
    >
    > This debate reminded me of something.
    >
    > "One man is a convinced realist, another a convinced idealist, and each
    teaches his children
    > accordingly. In such an important matter as the existence or non-existence
    of the external world
    > they don't want to teach their children anything wrong. What will the
    children be taught? To include
    > in what they say: "There are physical objects" or the opposite? If someone
    does not believe in
    > fairies, he does not need to teach his children "There are no fairies": he
    can omit to teach them
    > the word "fairy". On what occasion are they to say "There are...." or
    "There are no...."? Only when
    > they meet people of the contrary belief.
    > "But the idealist will teach his children the word 'chair' after all, for
    of course he wants to
    > teach them to do this or do that, eg to fetch a chair. Then where will be
    the difference between
    > what the idealist-educated children say and the realist ones? Won't the
    difference only be one of
    > battle-cry?"
    >
    > (Wittgenstein, Zettel, paras 413 & 414)
    >
    > The whole idealist/realist debate is a product of subject-object
    metaphysics, which we need to let
    > go of. The more Pirsig says that the MoQ is a type of idealism, the more
    he regresses from his
    > foundational insights.
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 Dec 18 2004 - 04:03:57 GMT