David B:
If you think for one moment that �passion� equals moral
correctness I can only say, �How wrong can someone be?� No one
in recent history was more passionate about his moral beliefs than
Adolf Hitler. Have you ever seen newsreels of him �emoting� about
the Jews?. Surely you can see from you knowledge of history that
zeal is no measure of rectitude.
> PIRSIG:
> "It was tempting to take all the moral conflicts of the world and,
one
> by one, see how they fit this kind of analysis, but Phaedrus
realized
> that if he started to get into that he'd never finish. Wherever he
> looked, whatever examples came to mind, he ALWAYS
SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO
> LAY THEM OUT WITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK, and the nature of
the conflicts
> usually seemed clearer when he did so."
PLATT:
Yes, that�s Pirsig�s claim. And maybe he can do it. But a review of
recent posts in answer to Roger�s moral dilemmas shows that even
Pirsig�s greatest fans disagree on how to apply the MOQ
framework.
> DMB:
> I don't think the MOQ flunks the test. Nothing personal here Platt,
> but I think you're the flunker in this case. Is that a word, flunker?
> Ayn Rand as a better moral philosopher? Yuk. I think of her as an
> amoral slut, a neurotic ego-maniac and it really shows in her
> thinking. I'm a little embarrassed each time she is mentioned.
PLATT:
Aren�t you a little embarrassed at finding it necessary to resort so
often to ad hominem attacks?
> DMB:
> Here too you seem to be making one of those assertions that
Pirsig
> finds so troubling? You're essentially dismissing Jon on the
charge
> that its only his "feelings". This is the same as saying it's just
> "subjective". Clearly this is the problem that the MOQ is
supposed to
> solve, but here it is, as if Pirsig didn't write a whole book
> explaining the problems with dismissing morals as subjective.
PLATT:
Wrong. I didn�t say morals are �just subjective.� I agree with Pirsig
that they are neither subjective nor objective, but in a separate
category of their own. But anyone who relies on feelings rather than
reason to decide right from wrong implicitly admits that morals are
not only subjective, but relative. Pirsig thinks we can and should
use reason, not feelings, to decide moral questions. That was the
point of his book.
> DMB:
> John Galt was an architect, eh? Could you be too fond of Rand
because
> she flatters you? Just a thought. Again, I think her books are
> essentially contrary to Pirsig's vision. To portray selfishness as
> moral and compassion as evil is just so mixed up. Sorry, but I
can't
> respect such notions. It seems irrational and there is a cruelty in
> it.
PLATT:
Wrong. Don�t you check your facts before making innuendoes? No,
John Galt was not an architect and your error makes it�s obvious
you�ve never read �Atlas Shrugged� and I doubt any other works by
Rand. If you had, you�d see that she builds her moral structure just
the same as Pirsig builds his, working from initial premises
rationally to conclusions. You can justifiably attack her premises
(as I do), but to criticize her view of morality by exclaiming it�s �just
so mixed up� is to use playground logic.
> DMB:
> OK, sure. One person's outrage is not enough for a basis, but its
a
> damn good start. Think of the good things that have come from
moral
> "outrage". Martin Luther was pissed. Jesus tore the place up.
John
> Brown was very high-decible fanatic. Rosa Parks was angry about
> injustice. The founders of this country were outraged at King
George.
> I could list the pissed all day long. I love those guys. They make
the
> world turn. Get on board!
PLATT
See Hitler comment above not to mention Tojo, Mao, Jack the
Ripper, Jim Jones, Klebold and Harris to name but a few. Get a grip!
> DMB:
> Impose their will by force of law? That's the most bizzare straw
man
> I've ever seen. Such a thing isn't even possible and society's
control
> of intellect is certainly considered immoral in the MOQ. Are you
> suggesting that Pirsig's sense of clarity and precision is
somehow
> tyrannical? Are you suggesting that Pirsig's desire to inform and
> persuade is to be written off as arrogant?
PLATT
You�re the one who called some members of law-making Congress
�bible-thumpers.� That sort of bigotry is what�s truly arrogant, not to
mention bizarre.
DAVID:
> Platt, to be perfectly frank, it seems most of your instincts,
> attitudes and beliefs are contrary to the MOQ. Looking out for
number
> one is not what saved the Captain. His only moral act resulted in
the
> loss of respect from Rigel, but it probably saved Lila's life and as
> Pirsig describes it, improved the whole world, not just himself.
That
> single "un-selfish" act is the focal point of the book in a very real
> sense. Ayn Rand he ain't.
PLATT
Well, wadda you know. That last sentence I can agree with and the
focal point of the book is �Good is a noun, like in the phrase �The
Good, the True and the Beautiful.� Didn�t you get to the last page?
DAVID:
> And yes, we have to accept the fact that suffering is a part of life,
> but that ought not be construed to mean that we are relieved of
moral
> responsibility. It doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to
> suffering. In his analysis of the civil war Pirsig clearly puts human
> equality at the highest reaches of his moral universe. "...and the
> principle of human equality is an even higher form than a nation.
John
> Brown's truth was never an abstraction. It still keeps marching
on."
PLATT:
Wrong. Pirsig puts human equality at the highest reaches of the
social level, not his moral universe. The highest level in his moral
universe is the intellectual level (plus DQ). Would you argue that
everyone is equal on that plane?
Of course, don�t take anything I say personally, David.
Platt
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]
