Hi Ron,
I do believe that the MoQ does provide a contextual framework for
the human expereince
Which promotes an understanding of relationships that do not draw
apon cultural terms
of agreement but a much larger context of four static patterns of
Quality which may be
applied to and in, any cultural context.
I'm still unsure as to the ability to accurately judge cultures by
it's standard though.
A good MoQ arguement to follow, and I invite Platt in on it, is this:
IS a culture that values intellectual quality vs. one that does
not, truly superior
even if that cultures intellectual level destroys and undercuts
it's social level?
IS a intellectually destructive society
superior to
a socially oppressive society?
Steve:
I disagree that Pirig saw anything acultural about what he was doing
based om his take on "I think therefore I am."
As for relativity, Pirsig saw the MOQ as giving us a way to talk
about morals rather than as a solution to moral disagreements. For
support of this claim, see the following from his intro to LC:
"I’ve concluded that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ
would be to block the
notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral problem
in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The image in my mind
as I wrote it was of a large football field that gave meaning to the
game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but did not decide
which team would win. That was the point of the two opposing
arguments over the death penalty described in Lila.That was the point
of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic Quality. Both are moral
arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just as two sides can
go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim constitutionality, so
two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that either the
Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole
judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of
conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of
moral rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption."
The above is only relativism if you believe in essences like The
Moral Law or if you have bought into the philosophical promise of
discovering an eternal foundation for our moral arguments. If you
haven't, then I don't think you'd want to use the word relativism at
all unless you encounter someone who takes the self-defeating
position that nothing is better or worse than anything else.
Best,
Steve
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/
