[Platt] I take it then that you agree with the notion that man invents morals for himself, are artificial and can be just about any old thing as opposed to Pirsig's thesis that morals are evolutionary, natural, and built into the fabric of the universe. In other words, you reject the central premises of the MOQ.
Is that correct? [Krimel] This is among the most puzzling posts I have yet encountered in this forum. I do think that morals are evolutionary, natural and built into the fabric of the universe and I disagree with Pirsig's assessment that science claims they are artificial and completely arbitrary. So it would seem that one of the three of us is confused. Efforts to find a specific set of moral in nature have not faired well. Gould writes about this very well in his collections of essays. Social Darwinism was a disastrous attempt to interpret morality writ in tooth and claw. But if for example you are able to see how both cannibalism and burial of the dead both serve the same morality or the same moral functions then perhaps we are actually on the same page for a change. 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/
