Hi Platt
On 30 Jun 2001, at 10:21, Platt Holden wrote:
> > On 29 Jun 2001, at 15:42, Platt Holden wrote:
> >
> > > "Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world,
> > > the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It
> > > was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil
> > > War."
>
> I didn't write this. Pirsig did.
Yeah, I know. I clumsily left out the reference from your previous post. Sorry about
that and
apologies if I've caused any confusion.
> > And then threw it in the bin by allowing a handful of judges to determine the will
>of the
> > American people.
>
> For another perspective read "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal
> the Election" by Bill Sammon.
Politicians will try all sorts of tricks in order to get and remain elected but in
this case the
collusion of the highest(?) legal institution of your country was also involved.
Surely the fairest,
most reasonable and democratic (in other words the highest Quality) solution in this
case
would have been to have re-run the electoral process in the affected region (and any
other
region for that matter).
>
> > Have you also forgotten the support and assistance that was provided by many
>Europeans?
>
> To Adam Smith and John Locke Americans owe a great deal. But
> Pirsig attributes much of our belief in the morality of freedom from the
> heavy hand of government to the American Indian.
And he appears to have good grounds to make these assertions, although I'm still not
entirely
sure of the sources. Modern America owes a huge debt to the American Indian - which is
rather ironic considering the light that they have been shown in - savages and killers
- and the
virtual genocide committed upon them. Far from being savages and killers many of them
were knowledgeable and educated. Many had travelled to Europe prior to the landing of
the
founding fathers and regularly conversed, in English, with them at their settlements
providing
them with food when their crops failed (I believe this is the source of your
Thanksgiving
celebrations) and generally helping them establish a colony in the New World away from
the
vile, evil and vicious (but please note not Socialist) European (OK mainly English)
repressors.
>
> > Platt, some time back you criticized the use of the Ad Hominem argument but now
>seem to
> > be using it in response to both Andrea and Marco. It seems to me that there is a
>difference
> > between the hypocrisy of Rigel (which is, after all the point Pirsig was making
>about cost-free
> > morals) and the beliefs of Marco and Andrea.
>
> By connecting my criticism directly to Pirsig's opinion of Rigel I felt
> justified. If I had just said something like "you're stupid" or "you're
> hypocritical" without any reference to Lila, I would accept your judgment
> and apologize. Furthermore, if either Andrea or Marco feel I am guilty of
> an ad hominem attack, I will apologize to each of them personally.
Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure that these things are kept in perspective.
>
> But let's keep in mind Pirsig's critique of the humanitarian premise:
>
> "The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone wihtout coercion
> cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a
> devasting fiction."
Absolutely - so in order for any society to become civilised and to remain intact an
amount of
coercion is necessary. This can come in various forms and should not be excessively
repressive.
>
> > Does Pirsig eating meat destroy the validity of this:
> >
> > "A popular moral issue that parallels the germ-patient issue is vegetarianism. Is
>it immoral,
> > as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the flesh of animals? Our current
>morality would
> > say it’s immoral only if you’re a Hindu or Buddhist. Otherwise it’s okay, since
>morality is
> > nothing more than a social convention.
> > An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say it’s scientifically immoral
>for everyone
> > because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than
>are grains
> > and fruits and vegetables. But the moral force of this injunction is not so great
>because the
> > levels of evolution are closer together than the doctor’s patient and the germ. It
>would add,
> > also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains
>and fruits and
> > vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of
>famine, since
> > they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism."
> >
> > and hence the evolutionary morality of the MoQ?
> >
> > I think not.
>
> What's your point? Pardon my dimness, but I don't see the connection
> to discussion at hand.
Well, I assume that grain, fruit and vegetables are abundant in the U.S. but in
Chapter 14 Lila
and Mr P. tuck into a meal of steak and fries. Hence P. is acting immorally. However
the
actions of the author does nothing to damage the veracity of his metaphysics. In
exactly the
same way if neither Andrea or Marco lift a finger to help anyone this does not detract
from
the veracity of their writings. In attacking Andrea or Marco for such you are using Ad
Hominem arguments - a point I made previously. I was using the above passage to
illustrate
exactly this as I believe exactly this point was made against Pirsig in the past by
someone
who should've known better (not you Platt I hasten to add).
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
