dmb, If I am to address your complaint I will need a little more information. Please specify your exact complaint with each statement. And please explain to which of the statements each quote that you've provided applies, and exactly how it specifically justifies your compliant.
Marsha p.s. I have changed the word 'will' to 'may' in the fourth statement, as it is a more appropriate word. If that is enough to dissolve your complaint all the better. Marsha said to djh: 1. I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. 2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, better or worse. 3. From the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. 4. I also accept that on the static (conventional) level *individual judgements* of what's bad or good may differ because of different static pattern histories and differences in the present dynamic conditions. On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:17 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb says: > Again, you are confusing the disease with cure. The view that nothing is > right or wrong and the view that everyone has their own individual judgements > is the disease. This is exactly what Pirsig about SOM. > > "From the perspective of subject-object science, the world is a completely > purposeless, valueless place. There is no point to anything. Nothing is right > and nothing is wrong. Everything is just functions, like machinery. There is > nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with > theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally > wrong because there are no morals, just functions." (277-8) > > "A scientific, intellectual culture had become a culture of millions of > isolated people living and dying in little cells of psychic solitary > confinement, unable to talk to one another, really, and unable to judge one > another because scientifically speaking it is impossible to do so. ..He could > invent moral goals for himself, but they are just artificial inventions. > Scientifically speaking he has no goals." (283) > > Plus, it's contradictory to say the world is nothing but value and nothing is > right or wrong. > > "...the Metaphysics of Quality concludes that the old Puritan & Victorian > social codes should not be followed [or attacked] blindly … They should be > dusted off and re-examined, fairly and impartially, to see what they were > trying to accomplish and actually did accomplish towards building a stronger > society. ...These moral bads and goods are not just ‘customs’. They are as > real as rocks and trees." > > "In a subject-object understanding of the world these terms have no meaning. > There is no such thing as "human rights." There is no such thing as moral > reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and nothing else.This soup of > sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be straightened out by > the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is meant by "human rights" is > usually the moral code of intellect-vs. -society, the moral right of > intellect to be free of social control... According to the Metaphysics of > Quality these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a > rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher > level of life from a lower level of life. They are for real." (307) > > > How can you square your view with Pirsig's text? Crowbars and dynamite, > 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
