Platt,
Platt wrote:
> Frankly I was shocked to learn that the MOQ considers vegitarians to be
morally superior
> to the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, at least as regards their
eating
> habits. That I never picked up on this before illustrates once again that
one tends to
> see what one wants to see.
How could you miss that? Didn't your eyes about bug out of your head the
first time you read it? I know mine did. Still I'm not looking for a
metaphysics to make me feel good about myself and my dietary predilictions,
i'm looking for a metaphysics that explain reality better than the one I
used to have. If it makes me less moral in the process well so be it.
Platt wrote:
> I think Pirsig's hypocrisy does indeed damage the veracity of his
metaphysics. He cannot
> berate Rigel on one hand and escape criticism of himself on the other. He
cannot set up
> a moral code and then violate it without raising doubts about his
sincerity. Once that
> doubt is raised, he begins to lose authenticity.
If you want a morally perfect being to lead you to the "promised land" maybe
you need to go checkout a church. RMP wasn't a saint he was a man, and if
he couldn't live up to his own conception of moral perfection I don't see
that as a problem. I can't either. That RMP existed as an imperfect moral
being and wrote of himself that way is fine. While he might prefer not to
have warts he does and he admits it. Great RMP! Thanks for being honest.
Platt wrote:
> Since the MOQ can be interpreted in ways to justify our moral
preconceptions (meaning it
> can be all things to all people and thus meaningless), and since Pirsig
himself
> violates his own canons, should we take the rest his metaphysics
seriously?
It can't, and it doesn't. We spend a lot of time quibling over corners but
not about the general shape. I think the vegitarians are superior to me in
this moral sense. What's so terrible about that? People who think they've
reached perfection are generally dangerous if not down right homicidal.
Again if want perfection, GO TO CHURCH. I think it much more reasonable and
honest to see all of us as imperfect moral beings.
Platt wrote:
> Your answer, Horse, is that the actions of the author make no difference.
I would dearly
> like to agree, but I can't. Actions speak louder than words in my book,
especially when
> it comes to matters moral.
But in the MoQ everything is morality!
Smirk,
AreteLaugh/Glen
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
