Quoting Magnus Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi again > > Platt Holden wrote: > > Hi Magnus, > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> I beg to differ I have always agreed with Pirsig that individuals are > >>> combinations of all four levels plus the ability to respond to DQ. I also > >>> agree with Pirisg when he writes: "Second, there were moral codes that > >>> established the supremacy of the social order over biological > >>> life—conventional morals —proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, > >>> theft and the like." (Lila, 13). So I fail to understand your criticism. > >> But those two quotes are somewhat contradictory, don't you see that? > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Pirsig realize this later, and then > >> excused himself (and the MoQ) by saying that the MoQ is just a > >> superficially > >> constructed system made to try to understand human interaction better. Or > >> in > >> other terms, he seems to have given up on the MoQ being a complete and > >> sound > >> metaphysics, whereas I have tried to refine it to fix contradictions like > >> that. > > > > Sorry. I don't follow you. Can you be more specific about Pirsig giving up > > on the MOQ? > > I didn't say "give up on the MoQ", read again.
" . . . he seems to have given up on the MoQ being a complete and sound metaphysics . . ." > >> metaphysics,> > In the Paul Turner letter > (http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html) he tries to > put arbitrary limits to the levels according to their "usefulness" > whatever that is. > > I don't consider a resulting system from such level definitions a > metaphysics, it's rather a lack of definitions. This is one of the > reasons I started the "What is a metaphysics to you" thread. Is this an answer to something? > >> So, we have: > >> > >> 1. Individuals are combinations of all four levels plus the ability to > >> respond to DQ. (I can agree with that, but it's *not* this "ability to > >> respond to DQ" that gives us our mind, sets us apart from the animals or > >> whatever. Everything responds to DQ. That's implied in the Q->DQ/SQ split.) > >> > >> 2. Social patterns are morally obliged to rule over biological patterns. > >> > >> Now, this "free market" is a social pattern, regardless of whether you dare > >> to agree to it or not. And when you say you want the free market to reign, > >> you are degrading all participants of that free market, including yourself, > >> to biological patterns. That's 2 above. > > > > Sorry, I don't follow you. I agree the free market is a social pattern as > > are all markets. Markets are where individuals by and sell products and > > services in an effort to defeat the forces of biology which include among > > other things, hunger. > > Yes. What was it you didn't follow? That I degrade participants in the free market to biological patterns. > >> But minutes later, when it suits you, you want to change into 1 above > >> and be an intellectual, free person, who *don't* want to be governed by any > >> social patterns. > > > > But, don't you see there's a big difference between a social pattern that > > promotes freedom necessary for full functioning of intellect vs. a social > > pattern like socialism that smothers freedom? > > Now, you're getting into politics and I try to stay away from that here > as much as possible, but one could for example argue that communism > promotes full functioning of intellect by removing the need to waste > intellectual effort on social value like money. Then socialism would > smother that freedom by forcing you to waste some of your intellectual > capacity to survive. > > Or did you mean something else? :) So in your opinion the MOQ could be used to justify communism? ------------------------------------------------- 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/
