DMB, Ian, DMB said: I don't think Harris is offering anything like "the answer we've been waiting for". Usually, "arrogant" is just what we call guys who make us feel stupid.
Ian said: To be fair Matt was guessing a bit, and it was Platt who called Harris arrogant. Matt: Yeah. What Ian said. And, "arrogance" is also used to describe philosophers who think they know better than other people and common subject material, like goodness. DMB said: I think this way of looking at it does provide some clarity about what's going on, namely each side is defending a different kind of good. Matt: Yeah. Maybe I've felt bothered by it because it seems to restrict us down to two classes of good (three with DQ, I guess): social and intellectual. I tend to think there are kinds of good that don't easily fit in those meta-kinds. DMB said: The notion of discrete levels demolishes what desired work? Matt: Being able to say in a conflict "this side is the more moral side." True, as Ian said, if we don't know what the levels are, that's a problem. But further, say we class them: was it really immoral for gravity to pull Icarus down from the heavens, or was gravity just doing what it does? The frame of many moral questions is different than Pirsig's philosophy. I'm suggesting that the "discreteness" of the levels make them unsuitable for most uses of our new found clarity, that we need more talk about how different these levels are and what that means in practice, because that's going to be the kind of clarity received from Pirsig. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan 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/
