Hi Ham (Ron) [Ham to Ron] > Here's another example, courtesy of Platt: > > Pirsig has EXTENDED the USUAL MEANING of morality to > > encompass other entities and processes in addition > > to human beings and their actions. > > Pirsig has also "redefined" Intellect as a level of Quality and human > awareness as a static pattern. How many other perfectly good English words > have been given this sleight-of-hand treatment in order to advance a > revolutionary new theory?
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Pirsig's rationale for extending the meaning of morality. If so, I refer you to Chapter 8 of "Lila" which begins with these words: "The idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral value sounds impossible at first. Only objects are supposed to be real. "Quality" is supposed to be just a vague fringe word that tells what we think about objects." He may have had you in mind, Ham, when he wrote those words. :-) He then proceeds to explain why morality better explains the concepts of "substance" and "cause" -- foundations of the subject/object worldview. He ends by suggesting that using "value" to describe the processes that are the province of the physical sciences leaves the "observed laboratory data exactly the same" while integrating the "humanities and the sciences." I might add that In the annals of philosophy, such integration is long overdue. So Pirsig's extension of morality beyond human behavior is no "sleight-of-hand." Its reasoned justification is fully expounded in Chapter 8. Best regards, Platt . Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
