dmb: > At one point, if memory serves, Steve even went so far as to say that Pirsig > doesn't talk about moral responsibility and otherwise suggested it plays no > important role in the MOQ.
Steve: It does play a role in the MOQ. The MOQ says that moral condemnation and praising oneself for not giving in to temptations that don't happen to be an issue for you is social level Rigelian stuff while Phaedrus tries to understand Lila in order to help her. dmb: >As far as I can figure, this odd stance is a result of trying to make the MOQ >accommodate Sam Harris's neurological determinism wherein persons are as >morally culpable as tornadoes. Steve: You've attributed this intention to me a few times. Let me be clear on this point. I have no wish to make Sam Harris, Nassim Taleb, David Eagleman or Daniel Dennet or the Buddha or Richard Rorty or James or Peirce or Campbell or any of my other intellectual heroes and Pirsig agree with one another. The MOQ is not my philosophy. It is the philosophy of Robert M Pirsig which I appreciate along with the thoughts of others like paintings in a gallery. I'm interested to see where these people agree and disagree with one another, but I have no intention of forcing agreement where they disagree. In fact, you yourself might benefit from starting to look for disagreement between your heroes James and Pirsig rather than always trying to find and perhaps force agreement. Doesn't that get boring after a while? Someone might right say that you don't really understand either if you can't explain where they disagree. 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
