Andre: > Platt: > > With one stroke Pirsig overthrows his premise of universal morality by > admitting to moral relativity. Further, he implies that to overcome > moral > relativity is impossible because "each person has a different static > pattern of life history." > > "Where have I go wrong in this post?" > > Andre: > > Hi Platt, my gut reaction is that you've got it arseabout. Morality is > not > relative to each person. Each person is relative to morality. DQ is the > constant. Static patterns the variant. (and this is good in itself, > otherwise it would be a very dull place to be, no?) There are no > subjects > and there are no objects, there are static patterns of value moving > towards > DQ. > > I think Pirsig reinforces his evolutionary vision in this quote you > mention, > and thereby the strength of the MoQ. > > And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good- > Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? > > I stand corrected and am convinced Ham will pounce on this like UTOU.
Good point, Andre. Each of us is relative to morality. But, since DQ is not defined, each of us can respond to it any old way we want including ignoring it all together. After all, Pirsig says we have free will. We can follow DQ if we want. But since it is some sort of vague betterness, we are free to define that betterness as we wish, depending on our life history. That's moral relativism. That's what concerns me. Any thoughts? Thanks, 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/
