> Ham wrote; > As I suggested before, you seem to be looking for a codified > morality system > that can used like a dipstick to measure the intrinsic goodness or > badness > of a societal act such as abortion. You will not find this in the > MoQ, > despite its "moral implications". When you're dealing with a > philosophy > that equates Morality with Quality, and proclaims them both > "universal", > there is no intelligible way to structure a "situational ethics" or > a moral > code that applies to specific behavior patterns.
MP: I disagree, Ham. I think MoQ offers a lot in terms of applied morality. So does Pirsig I'd wager, else why give us the morality example of the cow and the vegetarian during famine? I'm not looking for a codified morality system out of MoQ. I was very specific on my goal; can MoQ morality shed any light on this issue? The answer very well may be "no." I find that hard to believe, given MoQ can shed light on the morality issues in vegetarianism, but it may be so. Either MoQ has pragmatic moral relevance on the societal level or it is a pointless exercise and waste of intellectual energy. Ron's suggestion about the MoQ boils it down to nothing but a moral relativistic anarchy. That's just anti- theistic appropriation of the MoQ as a means of justifying pre-conceived, STATIC notions as far as I'm concerned. What I find fascinating from the reactions here is that when it comes to defending one's own personal beliefs, MoQ always seems to be the shield to MoQers. But when it comes time to accepting that those of others may be equally valid, it becomes the sword. Convenient. Disingenuous, and intellectually bankrupt. But convenient. Sure I've picked two hot button issues so far. Why shouldn't I? MoQ is presented by Pirsig as a replacement to previous thinking on reality. It is presented as the resolution to the conflicts inherent in previous thinking on reality. It is presented as a greater evolution of cultural faith and science. And MoQ is presented as a fundamentally moral understanding of reality. But if MoQ is then relevant only about vegetarianism, but not about faith, or life, or other fundamental human questions... WTF good is MoQ? > Ham wrote: > Pirsig in the ZAMM "The solution is not to condemn > the culture as stupid but to look for those factors that will make > the new information acceptable: the keys. " MP: LoL. Thanks for that quote Ham. How come I'm not surprised Marsha or any other MoQer here hasn't trotted it out before? The whole sum of all my discussions here about faith was all about looking for "the keys." My attempts with the issue of abortion, likewise; looking how MoQ can shed light on the subject. Interesting that I should have been so roundly condemned in the name of MoQ for my suggestions when I was doing the very thing Pirsig himself say we should do to move cultures into Dynamic change. > Ham wrote: > Good luck with your query, Michael. MP: Yeah, well, I have better things to do, to be sure. I'm becoming more and more convinced I'm better off just thinking about MoQ on my own. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
