ROGER TRIES TO DO A PRELIMINARY SUMMARY
ON THE TOPIC (written in pencil, not pen)
Ken, Mary, Platt and David B ( I wrote this before getting DL's comments),
Well, we only have five replies so far, and we already have five good sets of
arguments, one first class job of name calling, and at least a bit of
consistency (specifically on the abortion, lion and Civil War Q's), but a
healthy portion of contradictory conclusions as well. Best yet, we got our
favorite Texan back in the mix (welcome Mary). More responses are welcome,
but already I am leaning to support Platt's take on the overall topic.
PLATT:
Whether MOQ morality is “practical” or not can be endlessly
debated, and probably will be. Also, I’m aware that the MOQ can
be readily rationalized or “spun” to support nearly any preconceived
moral view, to which I plead as guilty as anyone else. I think the
inherent flaw of rationality (it cannot rationally prove its own
assumptions) is the fatal flaw of any moral order that claims to be
rational. Still, I’ll take them-(rationality and the MOQ)
PROVISIONALLY until something better comes along.
ROGER CONTINUES:
Mary's insights on the MOQ are worth writing in on my copy of Lila..... She
reminds us of 1)Interdependence, 2)Backward Compatibility (the lower levels
are not as indestructable as sometimes thought) and .....
MARY:
FORWARD UNCERTAINTY
3) It may be impossible to predict an outcome for a higher level about
which you have no comprehension. For example, how much moral certitude
can we apply to intellectual level decisions when we do not have a firm
understanding of what comes after? *****
ROGER AGAIN:
Mary's final point seems related to what Platt and I are concerned with. Any
useful moral guide on complex issues that are oriented toward an uncertain
future are sure to be a long way from foolproof. This doesn't mean our moral
values are to be neglected, just that they should be written in pencil rather
than in pen.
At the risk of inciting David again ( or is it at the hope of?) I believe
that we are dealing with the many-truth aspect of the MOQ. On pages 114 as
well as 407, Pirsig clarifies that if the ultimate reality is composed of
objects that there is just one true intellectual construction of things.
Pirsig instead shows that Quality or excellence is the ultimate reality. The
MOQ does not require one single exclusive truth. Instead, each construction
or model can be viewed based on value.
"There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive
some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the
result of our history and current patterns of values."
I think the MOQ preaches a continuously dynamic search for higher quality
interpretations of reality. As we gain experience and new knowledge we build
new models that are consistent with experience and, usually, with our past
models. (William James has some fascinating writings on this topic if anyone
is interested.)
Roger
(The last of the great slippery, anti-intellectual, Victorian, solipso-mystic
nihilists)
PS -- I will send some other notes on the other four actual Q responses in
another post.
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]
