Hi SA, > [Krimmel] >> We judge good ideas from >> bad ideas based on >> whether they work or not. > > After this you went on to discuss Ham's thesis. > I've dismissed Ham's thesis numerous times, especially > when the discussion goes in circles never truly > reaching any intellectual footing. Debate is good, > but Ham likes to state he's got it all figured out, > and I for one like a philosophy that is nimble and > active - and freely admits change call this the dq > aspect of intellectual footing (static patterns).
I agree. When I talk to people about the MOQ it's hard talking about it casually without sounding like your someone who's got it all figured out. After a few questions and answers, the questions die down and people seem to retreat into themselves and think 'Oh, this is just too much' or something of the like and move onto the next thing. I think it's a long time before the MOQ is accepted as a standard thing for this very reason. RMP has worried about it being too far ahead of what people are thinking and I'd tend to agree with those sobering inclinations. People are unable to tell the difference between someone who has really thought about beforehand the answers to the questions they're asking, and someone who just refuses to think about the questions they're asking, because both answer with as much assuredness as the other. I don't know everything, but words that represent such huge generalisations such as 'society' and 'intellect' I'm sure could be read to mean that I do. That said, I'm confident if people keep their eyes open and look at what isn't said or written down, things will turn out for the better. > I > haven't got the MoQ all figured out, and by now you > might know, I'd rather be in the woods fishing and > meditating, yet, even here Pirsig claims the MoQ > accounts for such activities. > Anyways... I kept the above quote from you in > curiosity. A robber wants something steals it, and > gets it. He does it. He works. He does it again. > Culture says no, this is immoral. Might we be basing > moral decisions on what is best according to what we > as a culture deem best. Intellect is involved. > Are > we making correct decisions always - no. Does a plant > bloom flowers and make fruit for children - yes, and > this works very well. > The Navajo used to raid camps > and other tribes for a living. It worked very well. > It was stealing and preying off of other people, but > it worked. Other tribes couldn't stop them. So, > everybody had to get out of their way each time they > moved through or try to stop them, but this didn't > deter their raiding. Eventually the U.S. came > through, and all the "A good Indian is a dead Indian" > didn't help the U.S.'s moral compass, but the Navajo > were stopped. This is a micro-event and I'm not even > pointing at the U.S.'s imperialistic Manifest Destiny. > I'm making an example as to 'what works' might have > to wait a lifetime, generations, centuries, or still > be waiting it out. So, what is our moral foundation > to end all questions as to what is best? I just sit > with my eyes closed and go fishing looking for this > answer. > Nice one SA. I sit with my eyes open, David. 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/
