From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Oct 22 2005 - 15:11:19 BST
> [Arlo]
> Intellect is the highest static level of the MOQ. The Law of Gravity, for
> one example, is an "intellectual pattern". Explain to me how this is not
> the product of "rational thought".
It's a product of SOM.
> What Pirsig showed was that science,
> which denied being concerned with morals, did indeed need to deal with
> morals. But he did not throw science out altogether. If Pirsig did not feel
> Intellect *should* be in charge of social-level patterns, then why did he
> place it as "more moral" in its higher rung? If the defect (no provision
> for morals) was a innate feature of reason (and not a function of a
> defective metaphysics that applied that reason), why do this?
SOM, as Pirsig says, is defective in morality and for that reason has been
abject failure in attempting to be in charge of society. Intellect after
all doesn't depend exclusively on reason.
> [Arlo previously]
> Does this mean you prefer "authority" as the interim basis for fixing of
> morals?
>
> [Platt]
> I prefer the Judeo-Christian moral code to the humanist code of moral
> relativism which in the West at least seems to be the alternative.
>
> [Arlo]
> Time to start being honest, Platt. You prefer *selected pieces* of the
> Judeo-Christian code that don't interfere with wealth-driven desires.
I see nothing in the ten commandments that says it's immoral to earn money
to take care of yourself, your family and those you value as well as
provide gainful employment to others through capital investment. Are you a
moral relativist? Do you believe some cultures are better than others?
> [Arlo]
> If the MOQ and reason are antithetical, then why did you in another post
> make the claim that Pirsig relied on reason and "thinking" when he
> formulated the MOQ? The MOQ gives "reason" the expanded provision for
> talking about morals, something it could not do before. It is with this
> that I try to base my moral code.
I have no problem with reason. I have a problem claiming that SOM was used
to create the MOQ.
> [Platt]
> Are you saying critical thinking is NOT SOMist? Perhaps you can explain how
> critical thinking differs from scientific methodology. As far as I know,
> critical thinking relies on reason, i.e., logic.
>
> [Arlo]
> Think of it this way, after his psycedelic revelation, the "reason" Pirsig
> used to formulate and analytically construct the MOQ was "critical
> thinking".
You ducked the question. Do you believe Pirsig used SOM to construct the
MOQ? I ask because once I argued along the lines you are arguing now. But
in Lila's Child, Pirsig straightened me out: "The MOQ is in opposition to
subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of that system which
it opposes sounds like a dismissal."
In other words, both SOM and the MOQ use reason, but that doesn't mean the
MOQ relies solely on reason (critical thinking) for its power. Most of
it's power comes from values innate in direct experience from which
intuitively, rationally or otherwise there's no escape.
What do you think? :-)
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 22 2005 - 15:17:01 BST