On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Platt, > > > > Steve: > > It's not meant to be true by definition. It's true because life G is > > better than life B. The basis of morality for Harris is that same as > > that of Pirsig: some things are better than others. > > > > Platt > > Yes, but as you know, Pirsig applies that basic premise beyond human > affairs. > > Big difference. > > Steve: > I understand that there is a difference, but does it matter in this > discussion? Perhaps you can explain why it is important that Harris > extends his conception of morality to include inanimate objects. > Hi Steve, Harris extends morality to inanimate objects? That's news to me. Do you mean Pirsig? If so, the importance of extending morality to inanimate objects is the explanatory power it provides, such as an answer to, "Why life?" Does Harris address the issue of how life emerged from rocks? Also, when it comes to social morality, much of it, as Pirsig explains, is based on keeping biological morality (jungle law) at bay > Steve > > As for whether or not studying the conditions that best foster > > well-being, if such a study happens to confirm some Christian values > > as worth valuing so much the better for Christian values, but it is > > the rational inquiry into values that stands in judgment of > > Christianity rather than the other way around. The MOQ sees the > > situation in the same way. > > > > Platt > > Except the MOQ acknowledges religious experience in a way that I doubt > Harris > > ever dreamed of: > > Steve: > Why do you keep pretending to know things a bout Harris that you don't > know? As usual, you are wrong about him. > Platt Well, if Harris acknowledges Dynamic Quality I'd be very surprised. But, If he does, I stand corrected. Steve > Please see the New York Post article "Selfless Consciousness Without Faith" > > http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html > > Platt As I thought -- no concept of the existence of DQ. Nor any acknowledgment of scientific dogma. But, glad he admits there's value in meditation although he fails to explain, scientifically, how the brain creates "selfless consciousness." Another illusion perhaps? 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/md/archives.html
