Hi David, I get your point, which is appropriate in light of some discussions. Cases are presented where MoQ is used to justify behavior. As such it can be dangerous. It would seem that we are predisposed to use the form of argument "that since the dogma states this, we are allowed to do that". The same can be said in a form of Christian dogma. Charles Manson (the killer) stated "If God is everything, then what is Bad?" My take is that interpretation is one thing, justification is another.
As with any world view, there could be certain precepts that trump all interpretation. For example, after the French Revolution, the declaration of rights, as approved in Paris in 1789, stated "Freedom consists in being able to do whatever does not harm the other...". Thus the precept of Natural Rights. Indeed, the Pursuit of Happiness, is also subject to certain fundamental laws. Both the Buddhist and Christian views speak of doing onto others as you would have them do to you. In fact there was a thread in this forum dedicated to this a while back. Using Western logic (and often a misguided law application), it is easy to justify anything. If the fundamental law is "I shall not use MoQ to justify anything I do through logic or rhetoric" it may be possible to arrive at a reasonable application of MoQ. I guess my point is that it is of course possible to use logic to create scenarios which frame MoQ in a negative untenable way. This is of course simply the justifying properties of logic, not MoQ. The question is, where does it bring the subjective self in terms of meaning? We create meaning like a flower creates pollen. The more people that ascribe to the same meaning, the better we seem to feel. As I have said to Dan and others, it is not what the words mean and where they lead as steps, but which direction the sign is pointing. The vista is what is desired, not what happens when we get there. Does Pirsig provide a way of looking at existence that has meaning? This, for me, is more a perspective for looking at the present moment than determining where it will take me. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 8:03 AM, David Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, >> [Mark] >> My point was that you have to have faith that Pirsig has an answer. > > [Dave] > Well he has "AN" answer, the question is, is it a "BETTER" answer? > Early on I thought it was, the more I got into the details, (particularly as > I saw the wide range ,often IMHO bizarre, interpretations by others here) I > became less and less enthused. But the killer for me are Pirsig's own > applications of his system. The "free will" thread that is current running > is a classic example. I think that Dan's presentation and interpretation of > Pirsig's ideas on this issue is pretty fair and accurate. Look at this > recent exchange: >>> Ron: >>> Static Quality is nothing but choice and having choice is freedom. . >[Dave] > Now just for a minute imagine that Ron's "choice" was not single malt scotch > but to murder his wife. To imagine Ron standing in front of a judge > explaining that because "murder" is a static pattern of value his action was > "determined", not of his own "free will", and thus there is no reason to > punish him. To me this is just plain laughable, but to imagine a world where > this is a reasonable argument and the judge agrees is beyond scary. That is > the world of MoQ. > > If this was the only case it might be excusable but several others are just > as egregious. > > Dave > > > > > 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 > 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
