From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 17:03:54 GMT
Paul,
Paul said:
I think intersubjective agreement has to be classified as static social patterns of authority and the static intellectual patterns they approve. Therefore, as Quality (or morality) *creates* static patterns (including intersubjective agreement), I don't think they are interchangeable. In addition, to borrow some words from Pirsig - when an American Indian goes into isolation and fasts in order to achieve a vision, the vision he seeks is not one of intersubjective agreement.
Matt:
I think you are making the same mistake Platt makes by thinking that by 'intersubjective agreement' I mean that one has to follow what the group thinks. This isn't true. 'Intersubjective agreement' represents the continuum from idiosyncratic beliefs to common sense. There are places for both and not all things need to become common sense. However, I do think all things start as idiosyncratic beliefs just in the way as the Native American originates the vision. It starts small and then depending on how useful the vision is to other people (and on if the person even wants to share her vision with anybody else--some things are just personal) it begins to travel its way over to common sense.
Paul said:
Pirsig's redescription of morality in evolutionary terms provides an explanation for the presence of immorality and good and evil.
Matt:
Sure it does, but I'm not looking for an explanation as to its presence. I wondering why we should respect low Quality-as-such.
Matt
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 Nov 13 2003 - 17:05:10 GMT