Quoting Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > 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. > > Platt: > 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) > > Ron: > How does this explain your stance? Quality is morality, morality is > reality > Reality is experience. Your experience in particular. So it is your > opinion > On what is superior.
My experience has much in common with yours, otherwise we couldn't be conversing. Everyone has opinions. I happen to agree with Pirsig's about the moral superiority of the higher levels over the lower. > Ron prev: > > 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. > > > Platt: > Well yes, it's all about personal opinion. But, it's Pirsig's opinion > that > each moral (reality) level is superior(reality) to it's lower one. My > opinion is he is right. > > Ron: > That reality is superior to reality? > If, by your own words morality equals reality then your statement is > contradictory and makes little sense. > Or is it reality is superior > To human perception of it. That makes sense. That makes no sense to me. Please explain. > Ron prev: > > 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. > > Platt: > I would say you are blind to the fact that some things > are superior to others. > > Ron: > No, I am not denying superiority from my own opinion, > But I realize that it is all that it is, my own. It serves > Great pragmatic purpose and great care must be taken > To develop it. Fine. We agree. > > Platt: > > Quality equals reality. Quality equals morality. Ergo, reality equals > > > morality. > > > > Ron: > > > The truth is indefinable; Quality is formless And takes on infinite > > distinction. > > Platt: > 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. > > Ron: > You are doing it now defending your opinion of superiority. > Platt, if you would, define your superiority less what it refers to. > This might be a good start. I don't see how you can define anything without reference to something else. Can you cite an example? > Ron prev: > > 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. > > Platt: > Do you think the reader is responsible for understanding what you say? > Or > could it be your obligation to make your views clear? > > Ron: > Please cite which views are not clear and I will do my best > To clarify them. See question about definition above. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
