From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 21:46:12 BST
> [Platt]
> Between the two books, Lila is much more meaningful to me. As for your
> charge that Lila is based on psychedelic revelations, you should back that
> up with evidence.
>
> [Arlo]
> I shouldn't even have to. Anyone who read the book would see this as
> self-evident (pun intended). Besides, Ant already traced all this out, with
> full quotes, and a timeline.
>
> With gratuities to Ant for this, here is the link to his August 18th post.
> You must have missed it.
>
> http://www2.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/16742.html
I suggest you read that over and then tell me where you find the words
Dynamic Quality and static quality, the division which is the basis for
the MOQ. You won't find it there, but you will in the following passage at
the end of Pirsig's long story about the Zuni brujo:
"Whatever the personality traits were that made him such a rebel from the
tribe around him, this man was no "misfit." He was an integral part of
Zuni culture. The whole tribe was in a state of evolution that had emerged
many centuries ago from cliff-dwelling isolation. Now it was entering a
state of cooperation with the whites and submission to white laws. He was
an active catalytic agent in that tribe's social evolution, and his
personal conflicts were a part of that tribe's cultural growth. Phaedrus
thought that the story of the old Pueblo Indian, seen in this way, made
deep and broad sense, and justified the enormous feeling of drama that it
produced. After many months of thinking about it, he was left with a
reward of two terms: Dynamic good and static good, which became the basic
division of his emerging Metaphysics of Quality. It certainly felt right.
Not subject and object but static and Dynamic is the basic division of
reality." (Lila, 9)
In case you missed it, here it is again "After many months of thinking
about it, he was left with a reward of two terms: Dynamic good and static
good, which became the basic division of his emerging Metaphysics of
Quality."
Do you see anything there about psychedelic revelations? I don't. I see
sober "thinking about it." I suppose if you're a tripper, it would make
you feel good to think Pirsig's philosophy was so inspired. And maybe it
was. But I can't get to that conclusion from reading Lila or Lila's Child
or other Pirsig writings.
> [Platt]
> Most people haven't read Lila. Most people don't question the source of
> their moral standards. Doesn't mean they are stupid.
>
> [Arlo]
> Do most people question the source of their beliefs? (Which is pretty much
> the same question) When I've suggested "no", you've criticized me for
> calling everyone "stupid".
As I recall, the context was that your implied that compared to liberals,
conservatives were stupid because they weren't critical thinkers. But, I
could be wrong..
> [Platt]
> Definitely. A morality based on religious tradition has already been torn
> to shreds. Now morality amounts to "anything goes" because it's "all
> relative, you see." You've said your morality is based on reason, but have
> never explained how.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think, I'm attempting to base my reason on the MOQ. I might not get it
> right every time, but that's what I'm here for (mostly). For example, we
> had long discussion a few months ago about applying the MOQ to thinking
> about social patterns. I argued for support of public libraries based on
> the free accecss to information that would amplify a culture's ability to
> respond to DQ. I've based my support of universal health care on the MOQ,
> concluding that if it is moral for a soceity to keep a prisoner alive
> because he is a potential source of evolution, then it seems evident that
> it is moral for society to protect the lives of all its citizens. It is
> from this same "reason" that I draw my views on abortion, and (as I've said
> in another post) child welfare.
OK. I too want to base my morality on reason using the MOQ. I thought
perhaps you were relying on Marxism or humanism as your source. I stand
corrected. And like you, I might not get the MOQ moral compass right every
time. That's why I keep asking for a discussion of morals here rather than
debating the finer philosophical points of this or that. As for universal
health care, didn't we exchange views on that before?
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 -
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 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 07:09:32 BST