Re: MD Nihilism

From: Chris Vlaar (c.c.vlaar@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2005 - 00:40:08 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "Re: MD Nihilism"

    marsha,

    the perfect answer to all what nihilism is not: Platt.

    Chris

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:06:50 -0500, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
    > Hi Marsha, All:
    >
    > Marsha writes:
    > > But in the end, it will be
    > > my gut, not words that will determine the next step.
    >
    > And:
    > > Deep in my bones I know there is no answer, there never was a answer and
    > > there never will be an answer.
    >
    > It appears that you rely on your gut and your bones to tell you what's
    > true and what's right. In other words, your feelings guide your beliefs.
    >
    > Pirsig makes it clear that feelings reside in and emerge from the
    > biological level, not the social or intellectual levels. "In the MOQ
    > feeling corresponds to biological quality." (Copleston notation).
    >
    > In Lila, Pirsig says feelings perceive quality. "There was a something
    > wrong, something wrong, something wrong feeling like a buzzer in the back
    > of his mind. It wasn't just his imagination. It was real. It was a primary
    > perception of negative quality." (Lila, 20)
    >
    > In his SODV paper, Pirsig talks about our "sense of value, of liking and
    > disliking" as a "primary sense." This sense seems to be a gut feeling more
    > than anything else.
    >
    > Further, if one agrees with Pirsig's determination of truth as being a
    > matter of personal taste, like choosing paintings in an art gallery, then
    > one's feelings rule.
    >
    > Contrast this with statement in Chap. 8 of Lila: "The tests of truth are
    > logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of
    > explanation." No mention of feelings here.
    >
    > And, at the root of the MOQ he proposes a system of rational moral
    > guidelines, as opposed to a morality based on feelings: "But what's not so
    > obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is
    > absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient. This
    > is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to some
    > doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all cultures.
    > It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a moral pattern of
    > reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of
    > reason." (Lila, 13)
    >
    > So what is it to be? Truth and morality based on experience and reason,
    > i.e., what is commonly thought of as comprising the intellectual level, or
    > truth and morality founded on personal feelings of liking and not liking
    > that bubble up from the biological level? Or, is some combination
    > workable?
    >
    > I look to the group for answers. The nihilistic answer, that existence is
    > senseless and useless, doesn't "feel right" to me.
    >
    > Best,
    > Platt
    >
    >
    > 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 Feb 25 2005 - 00:43:32 GMT