Hi Ron: Platt: > Quality equals reality. Quality equals morality. Ergo, reality equals > > morality. > > As far as I can tell, you are not rejecting superiority. You are simply > expressing your opinion as to what is superior. Right? > > Ron: > Right I am not rejecting superiority and I am expressing my opinion. > my opinion is that Quality comes before morality. > Quality may not be defined.
I hate to disappoint you but Pirsig is clear: "Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're identical. And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that means morality is also the primary reality of the world. The world is primarily a moral order." (Lila, 7) > what I do not care for is how MoQ is used as a measuring staff. > I think that RMP used the level system as a model to illustrate > The value system of static Quality, not a guide to distinguish > An absolute type of morality for it is all about individual opinion. > If one Philosophilogolizes Pirsigs MoQ to promote their own opinions > They are not reading all of Pirsigs words. Well yes, it's all about personal opinion. But, it's Pirsig's opinion that each moral level is superior to it's lower one. My opinion is he is right. > The Danger of using MoQ in this way is that of intellectual prejudice > Which MoQ does not support. Pirsig rails against prejudice, that is > What is so vile about SOM. It evokes a foolish elitist prejudice > Which blinds. Much the same way you use the level system to define your > Superiority, and in much the same way it blinds you as SOM does. > > Superiority only exists for the one distinguishing it. > Reality only exists to the one experiencing it. I don't think the existence of elephants in Africa depends on my experiencing them. Nor do I think your opinion of superiority is superior to mine. In fact, I would say you are blind to the fact that some things are superior to others. > Platt: > Quality equals reality. Quality equals morality. Ergo, reality equals > > morality. > > Ron: > Morality equals experience; ergo your experience is supreme. Immediate > Experience pre-intellectually is superior. Experience without > intellectual > Distinction is the superior morality. > Yet forever do you glorify intellectual distinction. Your own > specifically. > Wrapped in Pirsigs Quotes snipped out of context to support your views > Like a fire and brimstone preacher laying out the law in their own > interpretation with their own prejudices and sense of righteousness > convinced that their interpretation is the true interpretation, never > once second guessing the word as it is written. > Never taking heed of the contradictions it proposes. > The truth is indefinable; Quality is formless And takes on infinite > distinction. Since all you say is indefinable and formless, I take it with a grain of salt. It might be helpful if you could cite specific examples of my "glorification of intellectual distinction," whatever that means. > This is not my opinion, it is Robert Pirsigs. If you ask me to Quote him > Then I'm afraid you really do not understand the meaning of my words. Do you think the reader is responsible for understanding what you say? Or could it be your obligation to make your views clear? 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/
