Hi Horse and Group:
Horse, thanks for a most interesting response to my post of Jan. 29. I
readily admit to NOT understanding complexity, chaos and holism to the
extent that you know and use those concepts. Perhaps if I had the same
background, education and job experience as you I would also be deeply
suspicious of absolutes. It's one of the great beliefs of the scientifically
trained mind that there are no truths so set in stone that they can't be
overthrown by new evidence. Pirsig has some valid criticisms of science,
but he is lavish in praise of that part of the scientific method which insists
on keeping the door open to Dynamic Quality. Absolutes slam that door
shut, often resulting in all sorts of social and intellectual mischief. So, to
borrow a cliche, I think I know where you're coming from and fully agree
with that viewpoint.
As someone trained in the humanities, however, I see absolutes all over
the place, beginning with life and death and extending into our language
where a pig is a pig and absolutely not a doorknob, and into the digital
world where 0�s and 1�s are absolutely not coffee and doughnuts. And I
take an absolutist moral position against rape, kidnapping, lynching,
slavery and murder as commonly defined and I would guess you do, too,
although you might prefer to call such a position "extreme." I can't
imagine any circumstances where you would condone such acts.
In any case, I think we agree that moral absolutism can be absolutely
immoral, as has been the case many times in history, from the tortures of
the Spanish Inquisition to the massacres of Communist Russia. I also
think we agree on the value of Pirsig's rational moral system.
At the end of your letter you brought up a most intriguing idea.
HORSE wrote:
> As a final thought, and I am aware of your own thoughts on this subject Platt, I am
> interested in examining Struan's coherent materialism in relation to moral systems
>and
> the MOQ. From what I have read of his and other similar ideas I think that there is
>a
> valid materialistic starting point, strongly oppositional to the Pirsigian SOM
>position,
> which could also bring the MOQ into a more favourable academic light, without the
>need to
> compromise a single one of Pirsigs ideas.
A neat thought, Horse. A valid materialistic starting point for morality?
Boy, I'd like to see that developed. Would that not require as a starting
assumption that the material universe came into being because it was
"good" that it do so? How can we ever convince the scientific community
of that assumption--the principle of Dharma? I mean, don't we have to
change the scientific belief that chance and necessity fully account for
the creation and evolution of material things?
I'll eagerly follow whatever you or Struan propose as the best approach to
such questions.
Platt
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
