Hello all, long-time lurker, sometime poster here. I tend to read through posts to this echo every month or so, in spurts. Partly this is due, I think, to "this word stuff" being "somewhere else" (as Pirsig once said) - it's always one step removed from experience, and while I love to argue about life, the universe and everything, often I lack the stamina to participate in that remove for very long. The recent surge in posts, though, is exciting and infectious; all appreciation and admiration to Horse, Platt, Jon, David, Jack and everyone else for their fascinating discussion. In reading through some of the "Life" posts, it occurred to me to wonder if Kurt Godel has been mentioned in this forum? Godel is, or was, the mathematician who supposedly proved that knowledge is forever incomplete: we can never know everything. By Godel, one might conclude that absolute truth is a chimera, there ain't no such animal. I find that this dovetails nicely with my conception of the MoQ... an ever-growing body that will never really encompass Reality, only define it; the definition being a separate entity from that which is defined, bearing only as much likeness to the defined as WE, the definers, are able to give it. But while we may never know "Absolute Truth," unless we invent it ourselves, we can define "Absolute Relationships" between entities in the MoQ. This of course is what Pirsig did in the division of reality into Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellectual; he defined levels of morality and postulated a few examples of moral judgments based on the MoQ. The question was raised in this forum of whether we can make truly "moral" judgments, "moral" in this case meaning (if I am clear on this) "absolutely good." Good for all, good forever and ever, amen. I ask, is this a useful question? If we accept that we cannot know everything, then we must accept that we cannot know in any absolute sense whether a decision one makes will be good for all, forever. This does not seem to me a good reason for not making the decision. Is it less moral to act and be wrong? Is it more moral to hesitate? The question of Hiroshima was raised in this forum some time ago, and I read with relish. (Incidentally, remember Pirsig quoted Harry Truman with favor, I forget in which book. If desired I will find and post the passage.) I think Truman acted morally in accordance with his knowledge and responsibilities when he made the decision to drop the Bomb. Specifically, I believe it would have been immoral for him to duck the decision and reserve the option, with the knowledge that it most likely would have been used eventually anyway; and with his responsibilities, indecision itself is immoral. Now, if he had openly announced the Bomb's existence and proclaimed his unwavering opposition to its use, I believe that would have been a moral action also; but judging such "ifs" after the fact is, to my mind, probably a degenerate practice anyway. Is it moral to isolate oneself from having to make any decisions, judgments or actions that might affect another living being? In the Buddhist tradition, the answer may well be yes; but in reality, I doubt self-imposed isolation is any better than lotus-eating. Any thoughts? -Scott 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]
