Greetings,
KEN:
"> I am interested in knowing what your view of the source of the good is.
>As you say, a definition and source of "the good" is a definite requirement
>for the validity of the MoQ. I have puzzled over this for some time and can
>find no source for "good" except the universe. I have tried to make Quality
>the generator of "good" in the universe and now you have shot me down.
>Certainly there is no generally accepted definition within humanity. Where
>else are we going to look. Maybe there is no source and the MoQ is a bunch
>of crap. Maybe "good" is only applicable to certain narrow groups with each
>group having a different definition. I will be interested to hear your
>views. At the moment I am up the creek without a paddle. Ken"
Ken. I find myself on the same creek, also with no paddle. I'm afraid I can't answer
your question,
only throw it back in the ring for you and others to dissect. My only answer is that I
intuit that
good is central to everything, but that isn't good enough to convince me. I've shot
myself down in
flames many times on this issue.
DAVID B:
"Struan, insisting that "morality has to be looked at from a perspective"
smells to me like you have a foot trapped in SOM thinking. Again, please
forgive my authoritative tone, but I think your problem with the MOQ is
not the fault of any real contradictions, but stems from some
misunderstanding on your part, although I'm not sure I could put my
finger on it. (I hadn't seen your question or Pirsig's reply before.
Thanks for that little gem.)"
I was trying to look at it from an MoQ point of view.
". . . . there is not just one moral system. There are many." (Lila Chpt13 pg1)
Pirsig then goes on to explain that from the perspective of society one course of
action may be
moral while at the same time it may be immoral from an intellectual perspective. This
point has been
widely accepted in the past on this forum and I was merely repeating what had been
said before. Most
people came to the conclusion that there is level specific morality and most also came
to the
conclusion that there is an additional, all pervasive, universal morality. I question
the latter
while accepting the former and have given specific reasons why. If you want to show
why those
reasons are invalid I will listen with great care, until then I don't accept the SOM
accusation and
fail to see my misunderstanding.
I'm not sure if this:
"I can't help but wonder if the confusion is caused by an inability to
accept the conclusions one would have to arrive at rather than a
misunderstanding of the levels themselves. I mean, if a person comes to
Lila with their cup already full of conservative conclusions about how
the world works I think confusion is nearly inevitable."
was directed at myself, but I have to point out that my questioning on this subject
has, from the
beginning, arisen out of my desire not to be up shit creek without a paddle, which is
precisely
where I find myself. I have no conclusions and even less conservatism, seeking, as I
do, something
which will satisfy my unsatisfied curiosity. I am happy to say that I know nothing for
sure and have
only questions to ask. I find myself cast as the eternal sceptic.
Your faith in the MoQ strikes me as touching and I wish I could join you in it, but I
can't help
thinking that the only reason you have such faith is that you haven't properly
addressed the
problems highlighted on this thread.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
