Quoting Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [Case]
> > Or to those who attempt to spin the notion of moral orders to mean that
> > electrons and moons are Kantian's spinning in space because it is their
> > duty to do so or because they "ought" to behave this way. The Moon is
> > indeed made up of static patterns of value but the values are orbital
> > velocity, mass, distance from the earth...
>
> [Platt]
> I interpret Pirsig's inorganic value patterns as ethical, not numerical.
>
> "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an
> ETHICAL activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality
> create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so
> because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness"-this
> beginning response to Dynamic Quality- s an elementary unit of ethics upon
> which all right and wrong can be based.
>
> "When this understanding first broke through in Phaedrus's mind, that ethics
> and science had suddenly been integrated into a single system, he became so
> manic he couldn't think of anything else for days. The only time he had been
> more manic about an abstract idea was when he had first hit upon the idea of
> undefined Quality itself." (Lila, 12--emphasis added).
>
> I would be interested in other views on this interpretation.
>
> [Case]
> We have been through this several times, you and I and as I have said before
> I think by the time Pirsig gets to this point he has redefined ethics in
> such a way that it no longer means what you are claiming it means. In this
> sense 1+1=2 is an ethical statement. I think this usage is a pretty bad idea
> since now ethics can mean whatever you want it to mean. Your use of these
> passages confirms why I think this simply leads to fuzzy thinking.
>
> I have frequently objected to Pirsig's use of betterness and teleology and
> there is not point in repeating this.
>
> But I too am interested in what others have to say.
I'm sure your view is similar to many others. But it could be argued that 1+1=2
is
a "better" intellectual pattern than 1+1=3. But, to do that you have to accept
"betterness" as an ethical judgment. I think that's what Pirsig is claiming, and
that's why I described the MOQ as being based on an "astounding" premise.
I too look forward to other opinions.
PLatt
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
