From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 17:21:47 GMT
Platt:
>That's my point. The other stuff is pure fun and games.
OK, but don't imply that the fun and games stuff is not true. The truth is,
there's doubt about everything. Not enough to keep you from tying your
shoe, but that's the amazing thing, that's what's so great about morality,
it treats expectations as absolutes and lets us live.
> > > > I define morality as what people are expected to do.
>I guess that means you don't believe Pirsig when he defines morality as
>reality.
Sorry, I do define morality as reality also. In that sentence I was using
the word in its usual sense, as in "is such and such moral?". Using
expectation, I can connect both senses of the word: morality as reality is
the expectation of patterns repeating as patterns in general, morality as
right human behavior is the expectation of human behavior patterns
repeating. I'm curious how you connect the morality=reality definition of
Pirsig to your "is slavery moral" question. Slavery was certainly real,
wasn't it?
> > >Nevermind what "people" expect or think. Do YOU believe slavery is
> > >absolutely wrong?
> >
> > Sure. But I can't "nevermind" what people think. How does one do that?
>
>Ignore them. Remember the story of the Brujo in Lila?
You know, I didn't get that story, could you explain it to me? He got sent
away cause he was weird, but then came back and people accepted him cause he
stuck with his weirdness?
Regarding what I and people think, what I meant was my views on any topic
are going to be influenced by people. Choosing to ignore some people just
means that other people have gotten to me first.
>My grandparents believed a lot of things I don't. Likewise, my
>grandchildren will believe a lot of things I don't. "Many truths change,"
>which is one truth like many that doesn't. :-)
Hey, see? That's the post modern Rorty thing going there, isn't it? Fly
your freak flag high!
>One change
>I'm hoping for is a social morality based on reason like the intellectual
>morality that science adheres to rather than the social morality we have
>today based on collective ignorance like in the
>story of the "Emperor's New Clothes."
Collective ignorance? I think you underestimate the huge mass of collective
knowledge that morality is based on. Sure, there's lots of ignorance there
too, but don't dis morality. What would you change about the social
morality? You don't think it is based on reason? Have you read CS Lewis's
The Abolition Of Man? It's fine for Morality to evolve within the Tao,
using moral patterns for change, but the hope to replace morality with a new
one based on something "else" would lead to the abolition of man. The
patterns are pretty fragile and they have to be respected.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 17:22:09 GMT