ROGER RESPONDS TO PLATT AND MINI-FLAMES HALF HIS ONLINE FRIENDS AND HIMSELF PLATT WROTE: Sounds to me like you believe Pirsig offers us a method based on moral relativism which says there are no universal codes of right or wrong. Every ethical situation is unique and that ethical problems should only be solved temporarily on a case by case basis, taking into account as many relevant factors as possible including the involved person’s or persons’ sex, race, ethnic, cultural, family and educational background, and whatever else might comprise “a thousand different directions.” In other words, be flexible, stay loose and above all, avoid fixed judgments....... As I pointed out in a previous post, relativism or contextualism are legitimate moral positions, especially popular and promoted in academe. So if I’ve interpreted you correctly and that is essentially your position, you have plenty of learned company. ROGER: I have basically lost interest in the MOQ Forum over the past few months because I felt I was no longer growing through the interaction, and that others were caught in similar static perceptual prisons. In September's discussion, Bo and David B and David T basically were unable to respond to my ideas or my points. Instead, they bottled me into their preconceived notions of an Idealist and conveniently dismissed everything I said or every Pirsigian reference I provided. I vaguely remember some of us doing the same to Donny over a year ago. I did something similar to Rob last summer, and now I welcome you to the club, Platt. We are no longer talking to each other . We are categorizing each other and living our static traps. [Note that I am doing it RIGHT NOW!! ] Please respond to ME and not to your notions of Moral Relatavism. I will try to do the same as below.... PLATT: I’m sure you see the irony in applying a fixed “dynamic” methodology to moral issues and realize the self-contradiction in the idea that when it comes to ethical questions, nothing is certain. And, despite your protestations, I suspect you indeed use some fixed guidelines in making moral decisions. For example, you imply that “what works” is better than what doesn’t, that what has “proved successful” is better than what hasn’t, that “new opportunities” are better than none and that “maximizing value” is better than letting sleeping dogs lie. Further, I suspect, even if you haven’t stated or implied it, that an important moral guideline you use in your methodology is concern for the well-being of others. I suspect you use that guideline when you “intuit” whether value has been maximized. ROGER: Yes, I do use models and guides and past experience. But as in the MOQ, everything should be taken provisionally. As we discovered in the October 1998 topic on morality, the MOQ does not work all that great as a static moral guide (and Horse and Walter and I were the final hold outs that month.....most Lilacs bailed out by the 2nd week......REMEMBER?) PLATT: As I pointed out in a previous post, relativism or contextualism are legitimate moral positions, especially popular and promoted in academe. So if I’ve interpreted you correctly and that is essentially your position, you have plenty of learned company. But, I don’t think that’s Pirsig’s position. He proposes a fixed, universal moral structure in which intellect is morally superior to society, society to biology—well, you know the drill. Using that structure, he makes a number of hard and fast moral assertions, e.g., the civil war was moral. ROGER: Lila last page of Chapter 29: "The MOQ is a continuation of the mainstream 20th Century American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which says the test of the true is the good. It adds that this good is not a social code or some type of intellectual Hegelian Absolute. It is direct everyday experience." I concur with this statement completely. PLATT: In any case, thanks for your response to the question whether the MOQ can be used as a moral compass in real world situations and if so, how. And if I’ve gone astray in interpreting your position, please don’t hesitate to show the error of my ways. ROGER: Reread what I wrote below if you could please. Tell me how it differs from the quote from Lila. Better yet how does it differ (or not) from your hated Relatavism. Platt, I think very highly of you and the rest of the Squad. Sometimes I find it sad what we have deteriorated to though. No, not We....what "I "have deteriorated to. But I could be wrong, Roger MY OLD POST: I think the efforts to define a moral compass or apply it to real world solutions seems caught in the static truth trap. The problem with solving the moral dilemma is that to define the dilemma we first objectify it and build static models of it. We then apply some static solution to a static problem. The MOQ approach is to continuously redefine and undefine the problem. Approach it from a thousands directions and apply a thousand and one solutions. Test these, retest. Redefine the problem. Keep what works, throw out what doesn’t. Every once in a while try out what already proved unsuccessful and see if the problem has now given you new opportunities to try new twists on the old. And tomorrow, as you wake, intuit whether value has been maximized. You will find it hasn’t, so it is time to start anew. Sorry if this seems flippant, but this really is my take on the issue. The MOQ doesn’t so much offer solutions as it offers a method. And that method itself is dynamic….as someone else already said….it is lot like a real compass. 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]
