Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy/vegetarianism
Hi Wim, You wrote: I do thrive on vegetarian food for 25 years now. (I confess I eat meat maybe once a year when food isn't easily recognisable or properly labelled as 'carnivores only'.) My reason for renouncing meat is not that it would be immoral for me to be instrumental in killing lower life forms, but that I experience it is as immoral for me to be instrumental in starving human beings who can't afford to buy staple foods because these become too expensive when they (or alternative crops on the same fields) are used as fodder for our beef. I don't feel it is necessary for me be completely vegan. Humanity should eat LESS meat and animal products to provide for all its members but need not stop altogether. (By the way, I am the one that is cooking most in my family and doing all the shopping. Respecting the choice of wife and children to be carnivores, I have become more experienced than my wife in preparing meat.) Sam replies: I agree that one of the strongest arguments in favour of not eating meat is the point about inequity of resources. However, that is not an either/or point, it is a question of degree (as indeed you acknowledge). Moreover, if you are not vegan then chances are you have what might be called a 'standard' vegetarian diet, ie one that depends significantly upon dairy products. It was actually considering the implications of that industry which encouraged me to shift to my mostly-vegan-with-fish-and-occasional-fowl-and-even-more-occasional-red-mea t diet (!) I don't see dairy products as either healthy (all that saturated fat and, if not organically sourced, hormones) or animal-friendly (veal calves anyone?) and the industry is also subject to the criticism about the allocation of scarce resources. Moreover, having spent a significant amount of time going through the literature (scientific and philosophical - the book that got me started on vegetarianism was Tom Regan's Animal Rights, which I'd recommend to anyone wanting to explore things) I realised that the science of human nutrition was still in its comparative infancy. So many of the studies purporting to show the benefits of vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets didn't stand up to a rigorous scrutiny, and in the end I came to the conclusion that it was a matter of personal judgement, based not just on contemporary philosophy and science, but also anthropology and my own 'body wisdom'. Before I was veggie I was never a great fish eater, but fish was actually the one thing that I consistently missed, and, given that I have never been a great dairy consumer, I concluded that I needed fish to thrive, not just survive. So when you write: that would induce Sam to alter his statement into it is not (IMHO) possible FOR ME to thrive without having to become a vegetarian again I think that you are right. In particular I find that dairy products muck up my mucal/nose/breathing system and foster allergic reactions. Not a major thing, but significant I think. I hope I've explained my point of view more clearly than before. It isn't an argument for it being more moral to eat meat than vegetables, but really I don't see that as the over-riding division. I would like to imagine that my diet is still reasonably moral, it's just doesn't fall naturally into the standard veggie/non-veggie division. (I also think that we pretty much have a consensus between us relating to the MoQ - your comment Humanity should eat LESS meat and animal products to provide for all its members but need not stop altogether. is pretty much my view as well) BTW thank you for the care you take with your posts. I appreciate that. Sam 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
Re: Accepting reality (Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy)
Hi Jonathan: But in the end, Pirsig was glad to get rid of Lila: Too true. Many moons ago, I stirred things up by suggesting that in the end, Phaedrus was the posing moralist, slinking off and leaving the real job of caring for Lila to Richard Rigel. The elements of hypocrisy that come through in Lila are nothing new to me. What disappoints me much more is to see how so many people are only realising it now, and using is to cast a dark shadow over the MoQ. I knew somebody had pointed this out a long time ago. So it was you. I sure didn't see it at the time. Chalk it up to my being a dim bulb, blinded by the brilliance of the MOQ and unwilling at the time to see any cracks in the Great Author's edifice. PLATT quotes from Lila Across the cabin, on the pilot berth, Phaedrus saw that her suitcase was gone. There was a nice empty hole there. That was good. That meant he could get the trays of slips back out and have room to get to work on them again. That was good too. He remembered that PROGRAM slip he wrote to wait until Lila gets off the boat. He could cross that one off now. (Lila, Chap. 32). In the context it was written, it was clear that Phaedrus was not exactly jumping for joy at the outcome. He is mixed between sorrow at Lila' departure and happiness for his freedom. Notably, the happiness is a RATIONALISATION that gives us AFTER Lila has already decided to leave him. Well, actually he was jumping for joy--almost: He stood on a mound of sand beside some juniper bushes and said Ah!' He threw out his arms. Free! No idols, no Lila, no Rigel, no New York, no more American even. Just free! Sounds to me like pure emotion, not rationalization. How's that essay coming? Have you had a chance yet to read John Beasley's latest? Platt 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Wim Nusselder: Your wrote: I'd say: suffering from the limitations of lower levels' static patterns of value is the negative fact of Quality. DQ is the drive to eliminate that suffering, the drive behind evolution. Doesn't really contradict Pirsig, does it? Suffering as I interpret the meaning of the term indicates physical or mental pain of some kind. At least, that's the meaning humanitarians use. Their goal is to alleviation pain from the world, whether through human rights, animal rights, or who knows, insect, plant and rock rights (Gaia). I don't necessarily associate pain with static patterns. Nor do those in a static pattern always recognize that they could be in a better place, being perfectly content with the status quo. When Pirsig says that Those species that don't suffer don't survive I think he means that pain forces individuals within a species to seek relief and thus become more open to the weak forces of DQ, while those sitting fat, dumb and happy in a static nirvana get trampled on by the tides of change. But, I could be wrong. This is just another example in a long list of how the MOQ has many meanings, depending on the glasses one wears. Platt 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Platt, Do you honestly think the goal of all humanitarians is to eliminate all suffering? That would be the ideal of humanitarians, but im sure they know that that's never going to happen. And, personally, i dont think Pirsig's intended connotation of suffering was of the sick and starving in 3rd world countries, im pretty sure it was about the day-to-day suffering you and i go thru every day, as in being overwhelmed by work or having trouble with family members. This is a tool for learning and growing feathers that is necessary for us collectively; suffering due to lack of nutrition is on a much larger scale. Also, whether or not he was happy to get rid of Lila is not IMO that important because he was telling of Phaedrus's feelings at the time of the event. In retrospect i think he would be glad to have had Lila as a passenger because it tested out his metaphysics in a real-life situation. rasheed 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi All On 4 Jul 2001, at 8:37, Platt Holden wrote: By the way, humanitarians dedicated to eliminate suffering should note the following passage: If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of Quality that drives the whole process. (Lila, Chap. 29) Sufferring here can refer to at least 3 of the static levels and just because we do away with suffering at a Biological level and even a Social level, as humans we will still retain it at an intellectual level for some time to come - such is the condition of humans. And then there is the Code of Art or the Dynamic aspect. To say we shouldn't eliminate third world biological suffering is ridiculous and a cop-out and the MoQ just doesn't support this sort of attitude and given the context of the above quote there is no basis to suppose otherwise. 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Platt, thanks for the response. Two things: 1. The structure of Pirsig's argument. You quote him - 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. I think it would be worth fleshing this out (pun not intended). i) The MoQ asserts that animals are at a higher level of quality than grains and fruits and vegetables - they are more open to dynamic evolution etc. ii) Other things being equal, we should act in such a way as to foster the dynamic capacity of the overall system (that is what being 'moral' counts as according to the MoQ). Therefore iii) We should (where possible) be vegetarian as this fosters the dynamic capacity etc. I would argue that this argument is at best incomplete; I would further contend that it depends upon mistaken assumptions. Some comments upon the above points: i) This I think is uncontroversial, given the terms of the MoQ. ii) Similarly I think part ii) follows from the nature of the MoQ - if you accept this as the basic framework, then it seems to me that this is the logical conclusion. However, it seems to me that there is a logical leap from i) and ii) to get to iii). I think that Pirsig is assuming (tacitly): iia) Humans have greater dynamic capacity than animals, therefore their needs are paramount (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.) iib) Humans do not have to eat animals in order to preserve their dynamic capacity. I think that if you include iia) and iib) then the argument is coherent, and 'proves' that the MoQ requires vegetarianism. However, I do not think that iib) is true. My point is that only elements i) and ii) in the original argument derive from the MoQ (as does element iia)); element iib) is not something derived from the MoQ, it is something that can be (in principle) established as a matter of fact by 'normal' science, and dependent upon what the facts eventually prove to be, the mandatory nature of vegetarianism (by the light of the MoQ) is then either proven or not proven. 2. You write: Here evolutionary morality is a synonym for the MOQ which Pirsig compares to our current morality. Further, Pirsig claims that the MOQ provides scientific determination of what is moral and what isn't. So assuming that words mean things, and that Pirsig means what he says, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that according to the MOQ, eating meat is scientifically immoral. The latter part of this paragraph I think I've dealt with above. But I must confess to having great difficulty with the language of something being 'scientifically' immoral - frankly, it is reminiscent of the totalitarian governments of the last century. It seems to me that the word scientific is in this context being used rhetorically, to lend support to the other assertions (and the authority employed derives from SOM!!!). Bizarre, given how far ZAMM goes to disengage our minds from unthinking obeisance to scientific forms of thought. I am aware - my memory prompts me - that Pirsig is using this language in a particular sense in Lila, as he is trying to get away from the idea that all morality is 'just' a matter of opinion. He is trying to defend himself against that by the use of this language. But I don't think that it works, and I think it is counter-productive. Neither you nor I nor most of Western civilization can accept that moral precept, throwing the metaphysics of evolutionary morality-- that Pirsig invented and delineated -- into question. In part - yes. I don't think that it threatens the MoQ as a whole, though, just some of the derivative language that is used incautiously in parts of Lila. Hmm. I'm a bit unhappy with the second part of this post, I don't feel that I've spelt out exactly what the problems are, but I write in haste! Apologies. Sam 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Horse and others, I'm probably accusing the MoQ for being Emotivism in disguise, as Struan Hellier called it. That would explain all these Libertarians here, which surprised me at first. But this has off course been up for debate earlier, and I will read the e-mails from march 1998 and Lila's Child (thanks Dan for getting it back on the web). From Bodvar's Quality Event: It must be understood that Intellect cannot destroy Society as such. The danger is that never ending demands of freedom and rights may make the Western societies unmanageable, which in turn will raise demands for strong men and a return to more social orientated constitutions such as religious fundamentalism or fascism. At the present, warning signals are blaring and flashing, but overlooked. Freedom and rights are good so it is assumed that more must be better. All blame is on Society, it is unjust, law enforcement is bad and should be abolished, and when crime turns even worse, it is because the freedom measurements werent radical enough. This, to me, clearly states the same fear of Emotivism as I have. You could say that me and Bodvar, both being Norwegian, have the same emotional background for selecting right from wrong, but I believe and hope that Bodvar is clinging to the MoQ for better reasons than that. So why are all these violent gun-lovers and Libertarians that will drag the humans down to a biological level here. RMP in his letter to Bodvar states: I think the MOQ would classify emotions as mere biological responses to value, not value itself. YES! So these Libertarians ARE just confusing me, they are talking about emotions - quality at a biological level, and not value itself. I guess nobody is going to agree with me on this conclusion. Horse wrote: Most of the problems that arise in this respect are from superimposing the MoQ over a set of already held beliefs. Once you let go of your old beliefs and start afresh from a Quality foundation and apply an evolutionary morality the majority of problems dissolve. You are probably right, but if I end up as a violent, gun-loving Libertarian, I rather stick to my old beliefs. It's close to 30? Celsius here in Norway today, which is very unusual. I'll print a copy of Lila's Child, Chapter 14, order Alasdair MacIntyre After Virtue from a bookstore - (claimed to give an good explanation for why Libertarians will undermine society and morals and hence take the world down to a biological level), and head for the beach. Gerhard 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
Accepting reality (Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy)
Dear Roger, Marco, Platt, Dan, Andrea, Sam, Horse and everyone else. I'm addressing this to certain individuals because it links strongly to previous discussions we've engaged in. I'm not going to make this explicit, but I will use some of my favourite catch words. MARCO, PLATT But in the end, Pirsig was glad to get rid of Lila: Too true. Many moons ago, I stirred things up by suggesting that in the end, Phaedrus was the posing moralist, slinking off and leaving the real job of caring for Lila to Richard Rigel. The elements of hypocrisy that come through in Lila are nothing new to me. What disappoints me much more is to see how so many people are only realising it now, and using is to cast a dark shadow over the MoQ. HORSE Most of the problems that arise in this respect are from superimposing the MoQ over a set of already held beliefs. Once you let go of your old beliefs and start afresh from a Quality foundation and apply an evolutionary morality the majority of problems dissolve. Sorry Horse, but I can't accept this. Beliefs are no items of clothing. I am extremely suspicious of individuals who suddenly and completely revise their whole system of beliefs. When people suddenly put on the MoQ like a new suit, IMO they are likely to take it off just as abruptly. I think that the MoQ DOES affect beliefs, but in a dynamic way. People tend to form and revise their beliefs constantly over an entire lifetime. Nobody should let go of old beliefs because of the MoQ. However, they may find that the MoQ may help them to refine and resolve contradictions in their beliefs system. PLATT quotes from Lila Across the cabin, on the pilot berth, Phaedrus saw that her suitcase was gone. There was a nice empty hole there. That was good. That meant he could get the trays of slips back out and have room to get to work on them again. That was good too. He remembered that PROGRAM slip he wrote to wait until Lila gets off the boat. He could cross that one off now. (Lila, Chap. 32). In the context it was written, it was clear that Phaedrus was not exactly jumping for joy at the outcome. He is mixed between sorrow at Lila' departure and happiness for his freedom. Notably, the happiness is a RATIONALISATION that gives us AFTER Lila has already decided to leave him. This is SO true to life. So often we carefully plan our futures, only to find things turn out completely differently, and often for the better Phaedrus carefully explained how a period of solitude away from the pressure of life (and away from psychiatrists) would allow Lila to reconstruct her system of beliefs. He may have been right, but it would have been a stormy ride with considerable suffering for both Lila and Phaedrus. If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of Quality that drives the whole process. (Lila, Chap. 29) Platt On the other hand, someone like Richard Rigel might label Phaedrus' plan as reckless - no real plan at all. As things turned out, the POTENTIAL of Phaedrus' plan was never REALISED. The reality that emerged was that of Lila choosing Rigel and probable psychiatric treatment. Phaedrus didn't have the power to resist this turn of events. He accepted it with resignation. We all recognise good things in life, but we can't always see how to get them. Phaedrus and Rigel both desired to end Lila's suffering, but offered very different roads. In the end, the choice was made mostly by Lila herself. Life is all choices and we are caught between choices we make and the choices made for us. Once the choices are made, there is no going back, so we have to accept the reality and make the best of it. Jonathan 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Stephen, One thing that bugs me about the MOQ ... is why the MOQ gives no footnotes to any research if it where re-edited as a MOQ without the character development parts (which could be annotated) it would be easier to refer to in these discussions. Ya' know, a lot of people have complained about the difficulty in citing Pirsig. No index, no footnotes. I completely agree. It sucks not having either. That is, if you're an academic who wants that kind of stuff. The first time I read Lila, I read it for a philosophy research paper that I was going to write on Pirsig. It was mid-semester, the professor started calling for research topics, and I went into a panic. No one I had read really interested me. Not for a prolonged research paper, at least. But then it hit me, Hey, this is a Contemporary Philosophy class. I do know of one Contemporary that's interesting! Pirsig! It should be noted that, at this time (Aprilish 2000), I had only read ZAMM once. And it was on my second try. My first try had been in high school, fall of 1997. I got through, maybe, the first 50 pages and was like, Um, no. I cited not liking Pirsig's writing style very much. People kept saying he wrote like Hemingway and it fit: I hated Hemingway. Then, in fall of '98, I was an undeclared freshman in college. Having signed up for a bunch intro classes in a range of subjects, hoping against hopes that one of them would spark a fire, I went to pick up my books for Philosophy 101. And there it was. That goddamn book I couldn't finish a year ago. ZAMM. And now I had to friggin' buy the damn thing! Life wasn't lookin' so hot. Well, I took the class. The lecturer did the only thing she could possibly accomplish in a 101 class: turned my on to the subject material. She also hit my ego by asking me to be a Teaching Assistant for her Aesthetics 375 class. An upper-level course? I'm an undeclared freshman. And I don't like art. Let alone the philosophy of it. Well, she didn't take back her offer and there I was, an undeclared freshman leading discussions for juniors and seniors in Aesthetics--the bane of my existence. (Half way through the semester the other TA asked me off-hand, So, you joined the dark-side. Your a Phil major now. Film? No, why would you-- No, Philosophy. Oh, heh. No. No? Dude, why the hell aren't you? What else you gonna' do? And that was that.) But I've jumped ahead. During her 101 course we read ZAMM. And I got through it. Not only that but, to my astonishment, I loved it. The world does strange things. While I was at home that summer I ran into my old high-school teacher. I told him my experience, Yeah, never read it for your class, but DAMN! It kicked ass the second time around! I asked him if the author-guy had written anything else. He mumbled that there was a second one, but I probably wouldn't like it 'cuz it was mostly about sailing. And I like sailing, so there you go. And that was the last I thought about it. So, another year goes by, and here I am, tryin' to come up with a research topic. Hey, that Pirsig-guy wrote another book didn't he? So I bought it. And read it like a detective. I kept a notecard and wrote topics and page numbers down so I would know where to go back. And KABLAAM if it didn't save my life (Yep, that was an explosion). And it helps a lot here, too. (I should go back and do it for ZAMM. Damnit! And I just read it again, too.) The paper turned into Phenomenological-Existentialism and the Metaphysics of Quality, which will be posted soon (I think). I was so exicited about Pirsig that five days later, when another Phil Prof asked if some of us would rather write a paper than a final exam, I jumped at the chance to write again. It took me less than a week to write up the (longer) second one. Which, I think, is also going to be posted. So my point is (other than to hype up to implosion my two essays, not to mention my now finished third essay Mechanical Philosophy and the Yellow Brick Road of Science) that I do have an ad hoc index. It kinda' works for me. I would be willing to post it or send it to people who want it. Now, mind you, it's by page number, which is different for some copies. So there would have to be adjustments afterwards. And as for not having footnotes, it makes my job as a defender a lot harder in academic circles, but I feel like I'm doing something. I have to find the truth for myself. Is so finished with that beastly third essay, Matt
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Platt said: So, like you, I have my doubts. But this group is so intelligent on balance that by the simple expedient of talking things through I fully expect us to collectively arrive at a higher plane of understanding eventually. I just hope I'm still around when it happens. (-: Are your patterns of value going somewhere, Platt? Clarke :) 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Dan: Thanks for your comments on how different people interpret the MOQ differently. Here's a case in point. You wrote: DAN: Robert Pirsig is an author and Phaedrus is a fictional character in his books. They are not the same. I wonder how many others agree with you. I've always assumed Phaedrus and Pirsig where one and the same person. As evidence, here are a couple of passages from Lila: PIRSIG: But six years later, after publication of a successful book, most of these problems had disappeared. When the question arose of what would be the subject of a second book there was no question about what it would be. Phaedrus loaded his old Ford pickup truck with a camper and headed back to into Montana again, to the easter plains where the reservations were. And Phaedrus knew something about values. Before he had gone up into the mountains and written a whole book on values. Phaedrus thought it portended very well for his Metaphysics of Quality that both mysticism and science reject metaphysics for completely different reasons. The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. What made all this so formidable to Phaedrus was that he himself had insisted in his book that Quality cannot be defined. Well, I could go on, but I think you can see how I get the idea that Pirsig and Phaedrus are two names for the same nonfictional individual. I wonder what you see that I don't? Do our respective glasses distort the common meaning of words so much? Platt 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Dear Sam, Gerhard, Bo, Horse others, Sam wrote 2/7 16:45 +0100: I write this as someone who was vegetarian for ten years, but who now isn't, on the grounds that whilst it is possible to survive on a meat-free diet, it is not (IMHO) possible to thrive. I do thrive on vegetarian food for 25 years now. (I confess I eat meat maybe once a year when food isn't easily recognisable or properly labelled as 'carnivores only'.) My reason for renouncing meat is not that it would be immoral for me to be instrumental in killing lower life forms, but that I experience it is as immoral for me to be instrumental in starving human beings who can't afford to buy staple foods because these become too expensive when they (or alternative crops on the same fields) are used as fodder for our beef. I don't feel it is necessary for me be completely vegan. Humanity should eat LESS meat and animal products to provide for all its members but need not stop altogether. (By the way, I am the one that is cooking most in my family and doing all the shopping. Respecting the choice of wife and children to be carnivores, I have become more experienced than my wife in preparing meat.) Gerhard wrote 4/7 21:13 +0200: Bo Skutvik, in his excellent 'The Quality event' states that: The only criteria for a(ny) theorys 'truth' are whether: a) it is in accordance with experience, b) is logically consistent and c) does not need extraordinary long explanations (Occams razor). I would also add that it needs to be useful, that you can use it in order to come to some conclusions. So can we all, based on our previously defined beliefs, use MoQ to get a theory that is logical consistent and in accordance with our experience? As you are able to come up with arguments for death penalty, I guess someone with a brighter head than me also can come up with a explanation for why it is more moral to eat meat than vegetables. So it seems to me that MoQ is in accordance with Bo's criteria, but I can't see that it is useful. Are we all hypocrites, using the MoQ as a fortification for our beliefs? Is the MoQ useful? I guess I have written this question a few times already, with not much of a reply. I agree that usefulness is also a necessary test of 'truth' in a MoQ. Otherwise Pirsig could not call his MoQ an offshoot (Lila ch. 26) or a continuation of (ch. 29) James's 'pragmatism'. Do you agree Bo? Part of the test of usefulness is indeed whether one can reach moral conclusions using the intellectual pattern of value of which the truth is being tested. It is by no means necessary or even to be expected however that these conclusions are the same for everyone. If I can argue my case for vegetarianism more clearly employing a MoQ, that MoQ is useful for me. The fact that Sam probably won't agree with my conclusions, does not refute that MoQ. (I should have to reconsider my version of a MoQ however if Sam would find my argumentation for vegetarianism that does NOT employ that MoQ more convincing than the one that DOES.) His experience that my arguments don't convince him and compel him to become a vegetarian again would refute vegetarianism to the extent that I present it as a moral choice valid for everyone (humanity as a whole should not eat meat). I can't deny the fact that he probably had some bad experience as a result of his vegetarianism, nor can he deny my thriving on it. There may be some tacit assumptions (Sam 5/7 9:53 +0100) involved that -when taken explicitly into account- would reconcile our experiences with one -more complex- evaluation of vegetarianism (and that would induce Sam to alter his statement into it is not (IMHO) possible FOR ME to thrive without having to become a vegetarian again). Assumptions like wrong cookery books or mutations in my genome. Something like this must be the case with libertarianism and gun-owning also, although I don't quite see how. Horse wrote 5/7 1:32 +0100: Most of the problems that arise in this respect are from superimposing the MoQ over a set of already held beliefs. Once you let go of your old beliefs and start afresh from a Quality foundation and apply an evolutionary morality the majority of problems dissolve. His explanation of 5/7 14:04 +0100 makes this nearly acceptable for me, but I would still rather see it like this: The problem to me seems to me that we are testing a (not fully explicit version of a) MoQ PLUS an intellectual pattern of value PLUS a score of tacitly assumed (partly unconscious) other biological, social and intellectual patterns of value against another (...) MoQ PLUS a (slightly different interpretation of that) intellectual pattern of value PLUS quite another score of tacit assumptions. We're just trying to solve a set of equations with far too many unknowns. With friendly greetings, Wim Nusselder 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:
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hello everyone From: Gerhard Ersdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:16:57 +0200 Hi Horse and others, I'm probably accusing the MoQ for being Emotivism in disguise, as Struan Hellier called it. That would explain all these Libertarians here, which surprised me at first. But this has off course been up for debate earlier, and I will read the e-mails from march 1998 and Lila's Child (thanks Dan for getting it back on the web). Hi Gerhard You are welcome. Gerhard: From Bodvar's Quality Event: It must be understood that Intellect cannot destroy Society as such. The danger is that never ending demands of freedom and rights may make the Western societies unmanageable, which in turn will raise demands for strong men and a return to more social orientated constitutions such as religious fundamentalism or fascism. At the present, warning signals are blaring and flashing, but overlooked. Freedom and rights are good so it is assumed that more must be better. All blame is on Society, it is unjust, law enforcement is bad and should be abolished, and when crime turns even worse, it is because the freedom measurements werent radical enough. This, to me, clearly states the same fear of Emotivism as I have. You could say that me and Bodvar, both being Norwegian, have the same emotional background for selecting right from wrong, but I believe and hope that Bodvar is clinging to the MoQ for better reasons than that. So why are all these violent gun-lovers and Libertarians that will drag the humans down to a biological level here. RMP in his letter to Bodvar states: I think the MOQ would classify emotions as mere biological responses to value, not value itself. YES! So these Libertarians ARE just confusing me, they are talking about emotions - quality at a biological level, and not value itself. I guess nobody is going to agree with me on this conclusion. Dan: This seems a very complex issue that I really haven't had the time to mull over much, but all in all I believe I agree with you to a point. This is something to ponder further on. Thank you. It's close to 30? Celsius here in Norway today, which is very unusual. I'll print a copy of Lila's Child, Chapter 14, order Alasdair MacIntyre After Virtue from a bookstore - (claimed to give an good explanation for why Libertarians will undermine society and morals and hence take the world down to a biological level), and head for the beach. Now that sounds like a pleasant way to spend the afternoon. Hope you enjoy! Dan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hello everyone From: Platt Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:42:04 -0400 Hi Dan: Thanks for your comments on how different people interpret the MOQ differently. Here's a case in point. You wrote: DAN: Robert Pirsig is an author and Phaedrus is a fictional character in his books. They are not the same. I wonder how many others agree with you. I've always assumed Phaedrus and Pirsig where one and the same person. As evidence, here are a couple of passages from Lila: PIRSIG: But six years later, after publication of a successful book, most of these problems had disappeared. When the question arose of what would be the subject of a second book there was no question about what it would be. Phaedrus loaded his old Ford pickup truck with a camper and headed back to into Montana again, to the easter plains where the reservations were. And Phaedrus knew something about values. Before he had gone up into the mountains and written a whole book on values. Phaedrus thought it portended very well for his Metaphysics of Quality that both mysticism and science reject metaphysics for completely different reasons. The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. What made all this so formidable to Phaedrus was that he himself had insisted in his book that Quality cannot be defined. Well, I could go on, but I think you can see how I get the idea that Pirsig and Phaedrus are two names for the same nonfictional individual. I wonder what you see that I don't? Do our respective glasses distort the common meaning of words so much? Hi Platt I came to that conclusion from reading the letters others have shared from Robert Pirsig over the years. He is warm and humorous. Phaedrus is so distant and always so doggone serious. I think Phaedrus is a mask, just like we all have masks we put on. He is not the man. Thank you for your reply. Dan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Marco: But in the end, Pirsig was glad to get rid of Lila: Across the cabin, on the pilot berth, Phaedrus saw that her suitcase was gone. There was a nice empty hole there. That was good. That meant he could get the trays of slips back out and have room to get to work on them again. That was good too. He remembered that PROGRAM slip he wrote to wait until Lila gets off the boat. He could cross that one off now. (Lila, Chap. 32). By the way, humanitarians dedicated to eliminate suffering should note the following passage: If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of Quality that drives the whole process. (Lila, Chap. 29) Platt 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Horse, John B: The MoQ is a statement about reality. Pirsig is part of that reality but not it's entireity - the MoQ would be as true a statement about reality whether he existed or not. The MoQ gives us a target to aim for - a bullseye is great but not necessary. To be the best that you can be is the important thing. It's hard to remove Pirsig from the MOQ because the novel in which it is set forth is all about him. Lila is autobiographical, unlike any of Shakespeare's plays. When you take the MOQ on its face you find many contradictions as John Beasley points out in his new essay on the forum. And when the MOQ says it's immoral to eat meat, one begins to wonder about other flaws. As for being the best you can be, join the U.S. Army. That's their motto--the point being you don't need the MOQ to inspire you to excellence. Platt 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Platt wrote: By the way, humanitarians dedicated to eliminate suffering should note the following passage: If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of Quality that drives the whole process. (Lila, Chap. 29) More and more I become of the relevance of the very concept of a point of view (and some flexibility in switching from one another) is relevant to MOQ (that good old Sophism). The very same sentence, Platt, also tells us that we must strife to eliminate suffering if we are to play the game of Quality. Accept suffering, and it will stop driving the process of evolution. No? Andrea 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
(Sorry, I sent the former version by mistake) More and more I become aare of the relevance of the very concept of a point of view (and some flexibility in switching from one another) to the MOQ (that good old Sophism). The very same sentence you quote, Platt, also tells us that we must strife to eliminate suffering if we are to play the game of Quality. Accept suffering, and it will stop driving the process of evolution. No? Andrea Platt Holden wrote Hi Marco: But in the end, Pirsig was glad to get rid of Lila: Across the cabin, on the pilot berth, Phaedrus saw that her suitcase was gone. There was a nice empty hole there. That was good. That meant he could get the trays of slips back out and have room to get to work on them again. That was good too. He remembered that PROGRAM slip he wrote to wait until Lila gets off the boat. He could cross that one off now. (Lila, Chap. 32). By the way, humanitarians dedicated to eliminate suffering should note the following passage: If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of Quality that drives the whole process. (Lila, Chap. 29) Platt 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 -- Andrea Sosio RIM/PSPM/PPITMN Tel. (8)9006 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
As for being the best you can be, join the U.S. Army. That's their motto--the point being you don't need the MOQ to inspire you to excellence. You may be interested to know that that slogan -- Be all you can be -- was quite consciously developed for the US army by a group of people who were quite familiar with Pirsig (and Korzybski). It was thought that the slogan would help create a culture of change within the army. It took several years before it 'took' and became an official part of the army culture. Lawry de Bivort 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Platt, I think we should have a goal: To live fully after our principles. I also believe that the goals you set, should be something to strive against, and nothing you should expect to suceed in easily. In short; I think you are setting to high It the moment I'm not certain that MoQ are defining my goal, as I am more confused now on the deductions from MoQ than I was when I joined this list. I was used to having the goals defined by humanitarianism and utilitarianism, but lacked a foundation for these arguments. Some years ago, I thought I found this foundation when reading Lila, and I call tell you that I was pleased. Now, after being a member of this discussion group for a half year, I've learned that it is possible to be pro and con death penalty, it is possible to be humanitarian and non-humanitarian, it is possible to defend egoism and utilitarianism, etc. etc., all based on the MoQ. Bo Skutvik, in his excellent The Quality event states that: The only criteria for a(ny) theorys truth are: a) whether it is in accordance with experience. b) is logical consistently. c) does not need extraordinary long explanations (Occams razor). I would also add that it needs to be useful, that you can use it in order to come to some conclusions. So; can we all based on our previously defined beliefs, use MoQ to get a theory that is logical consistent, and in accordance with our experience? As you are able to come up with arguments for death penalty, I guess someone with a brighter head than me also can come up with a explanation for why it is more moral to eat meat than vegetables. So it seems to me that MoQ is in accordance with Bo's criteria, but I cant see that it is useful. Are we all hypocrites, using the MoQ as a fortification for our beliefs? Is the MoQ usefull? I guess I have written this question a few times already, with not much of a reply. So I'm probably very off the general understanding. OK, I'm rather new to this, and the discussion has been heated, so I will not abandon the MoQ or this list. I will stay quite for a while, and read the postings of Marco, Andrea and others I can relate to and that have some of the same understanding as I do. Friendly greetings, Gerhard 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Dear Platt, You wrote 4/7 8:37 -0400: By the way, humanitarians dedicated to eliminate suffering should note the following passage:'If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of Quality that drives the whole process. (Lila, Chap. 29) I'd say: suffering from the limitations of lower levels' static patterns of value is the negative face of Quality. DQ is the drive to eliminate that suffering, the drive behind evolution. Doesn't really contradict Pirsig, does it? With friendly greetings, Wim Nusselder
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Sam: SAM: This may or may not be germane to the question of Pirsig's posited hypocrisy, but in point of fact, the MoQ itself does not require vegetarianism. In this instance RMP is making a tacit assumption about the viability of human life on a vegetarian diet; if that assumption is altered (ie by making the assumption that meat is necessary for human flourishing) then the MoQ comes down equally clearly on the side of non-vegetarianism. I write this as someone who was vegetarian for ten years, but who now isn't, on the grounds that whilst it is possible to survive on a meat-free diet, it is not (IMHO) possible to thrive. Perhaps you're right about what RMP really means. But here is the relevant quote from Chp. 13 of Lila: 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. Here evolutionary morality is a synonym for the MOQ which Pirsig compares to our current morality. Further, Pirsig claims that the MOQ provides scientific determination of what is moral and what isn't. So assuming that words mean things, and that Pirsig means what he says, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that according to the MOQ, eating meat is scientifically immoral. Neither you nor I nor most of Western civilization can accept that moral precept, throwing the metaphysics of evolutionary morality-- that Pirsig invented and delineated -- into question. Platt 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Platt and All On 4 Jul 2001, at 8:58, Platt Holden wrote: It's hard to remove Pirsig from the MOQ because the novel in which it is set forth is all about him. Lila is autobiographical, unlike any of Shakespeare's plays. It may be hard but it is also necessary - otherwise you don't have a Metaphysics, just a novel. When you take the MOQ on its face you find many contradictions as John Beasley points out in his new essay on the forum. And when the MOQ says it's immoral to eat meat, one begins to wonder about other flaws. As for being the best you can be, join the U.S. Army. That's their motto--the point being you don't need the MOQ to inspire you to excellence. The MoQ doesn't say it is immoral to eat meat: ...this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables. and what is wrong with this statement that you should consider it a flaw? You may not like it but it is a consequence of a reasonable and excellent moral system. As for joining the Army, I think I'll give it a miss - the day I believe any of their garbage motto's or other propaganda I'll be about ready for the funny farm - come to think of it, is there a lot of difference? 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Gerhard On 4 Jul 2001, at 21:13, Gerhard Ersdal wrote: It the moment I'm not certain that MoQ are defining my goal, as I am more confused now on the deductions from MoQ than I was when I joined this list. I was used to having the goals defined by humanitarianism and utilitarianism, but lacked a foundation for these arguments. Some years ago, I thought I found this foundation when reading Lila, and I call tell you that I was pleased. Now, after being a member of this discussion group for a half year, I've learned that it is possible to be pro and con death penalty, it is possible to be humanitarian and non-humanitarian, it is possible to defend egoism and utilitarianism, etc. etc., all based on the MoQ. Most of the problems that arise in this respect are from superimposing the MoQ over a set of already held beliefs. Once you let go of your old beliefs and start afresh from a Quality foundation and apply an evolutionary morality the majority of problems dissolve. 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Platt On 4 Jul 2001, at 20:17, Platt Holden wrote: Neither you nor I nor most of Western civilization can accept that moral precept, throwing the metaphysics of evolutionary morality-- that Pirsig invented and delineated -- into question. So because of the moral decrepitude of much of western society who are unable to accept what is as plain as the nose on your face we have to say that it is the MoQ that is at fault and not those that are unable to rise to the challenges of a superior moral system. Incidentally, does this also mean that your justification of the free market and the villification of socialism are similarly suspect. 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Horse Wrote: I'm looking at my watch. The time is 14 miutes and 10 seconds past 1 o'clock in the morning. Would this change if I were a murderer, a rapist or a child molester (I'm none of these I hasten to add - honest!). Of course it wouldn't. The world's biggest fool can say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out. -Robert M. Pirsig, ZAMM, ch 19. 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Glen: GLEN: Again if want perfection, GO TO CHURCH. PIRSIG: His favorite Christian mystic was Johannes Eckhart who said, Wouldst thou be perfect, do not yelp about God. (Lila, Chp. 30) . . . perfection, a synonym for Quality. (Lila, Chp. 11) Platt 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hi Marco: MARCO: Phaedrus tries uselessly to convince her (Lila) to stay with him, and is sad when she goes (ch. 31), so he is not selfish. PIRSIG: He stood on a mound of sand beside the juniper bushes and said, A! He threw out his arms. Free! No idols, no Lila, no Rigel, no New York, no more America even. Just free! (Lila, Chp. 32) Platt 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Platt, Yes a synonym for Quality, just don't expect to ever know exactly what it is or to get to it. I'm sure however that you can find a church where you may be able to obtain both. While this mailing list is in a way 'yelping about Quality' it is also informative and assists in refining our own view of what Quality is. You are correct though that the real test of our convictions is how we live our lives. RMP was to a certain extent a hypcrite but to see that and nothing else is surely pessimism of the worst kind. On the other hand perhaps you've seen something better? A dream of a shinning castle atop a hill as seen from afar? Perhaps you do need to go seeking? In that case I urge to go out and discover or invent something better, but if you do not find something better then be not afraid to return and say so. Glen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Platt Holden Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 05:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy Hi Glen: GLEN: Again if want perfection, GO TO CHURCH. PIRSIG: His favorite Christian mystic was Johannes Eckhart who said, Wouldst thou be perfect, do not yelp about God. (Lila, Chp. 30) . . . perfection, a synonym for Quality. (Lila, Chp. 11) Platt 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 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
But you can't dismiss that: Hello, he said. Hello, she said back. I hear you want to go back. She looked down. Guilt. This was the first time he had ever seen her look guilty. He said, I think it's a very bad mistake. She still looked down. Why are you going back? Lila looked up and then finally said, I wanted to go with you. You don't know how bad. But now I've changed my mind. There are a lot of things I want to do first. Phaedrus said, There's nothing but trouble waiting for you back there. I know that, but they need me. Who? My mother and everybody He looked at her. Well, he wanted to ask, [] What's changed?, [...] Did Rigel put you up to this? [...] Do you know what's going to happen to you back there? Is this some kind of suicide? My God, Lila, you haven't done one single solitary smart thing since the moment I met you, do you know that? [...] But he didn't say all this. He just sat there like a child at a funeral, watching her. [...] You're ABSOLUTELY SURE? he said. Lila looked at him for a long time. He waited for a flicker of doubt to appear and waited some more but she just sat there and then she said it so quietly he could hardly hear it I'm all right [...] He couldn't think of anything. Finally he got up and said, Okay. He climbed up to the deck where Rigel was standing. [...] As Phaedrus watched him start up his boat's engine he felt somewhat dumbstruck. He crossed over to his own boat, helped Rigel cast off the lines and then watched with a strange sort of paralysis as Rigel's boat turned and then headed back north across the bay. (end of Chapter 31) Bye, Marco - Original Message - From: Platt Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:53 PM Subject: Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy Hi Marco: MARCO: Phaedrus tries uselessly to convince her (Lila) to stay with him, and is sad when she goes (ch. 31), so he is not selfish. PIRSIG: He stood on a mound of sand beside the juniper bushes and said, A! He threw out his arms. Free! No idols, no Lila, no Rigel, no New York, no more America even. Just free! (Lila, Chp. 32) Platt 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 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Greetings one and all, Platt wrote: Actually I was unaware of this hypocrisy in the MOQ and appreciate your pointing it out. 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. This may or may not be germane to the question of Pirsig's posited hypocrisy, but in point of fact, the MoQ itself does not require vegetarianism. In this instance RMP is making a tacit assumption about the viability of human life on a vegetarian diet; if that assumption is altered (ie by making the assumption that meat is necessary for human flourishing) then the MoQ comes down equally clearly on the side of non-vegetarianism. I write this as someone who was vegetarian for ten years, but who now isn't, on the grounds that whilst it is possible to survive on a meat-free diet, it is not (IMHO) possible to thrive. Sam 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
From: Platt Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:47:53 -0400 Hi Horse, Gerhard, Andrea, Marco, All: Horse, rather than debate your point about a re-run of the Florida election as being the highest Quality resolution of that issue, or the kindness of Indians, or the necessity for coercion in society, I want to focus on the following: 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 its immoral only if youre a Hindu or Buddhist. Otherwise its okay, since morality is nothing more than a social convention. An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say its 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 doctors 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). Actually I was unaware of this hypocrisy in the MOQ and appreciate your pointing it out. 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. 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. Hi Platt I suspect Phaedrus is an aspect of Robert Pirsig but rightfully so are all the characters in Lila. Perhaps Phaedrus might be seen as the internal discursive dialogue (the intellect), forever chattering on about the meaningful/meaningless; constantly contradicting himself yet confident the stream of his own words will overcome these contradictions in the end. Rigel might be seen as a guardian who has turned into a guard, envious of the Great Author outwardly yet genuinely concerned with his welfare under the surface. By their pulling apart these two aspects tend to grow closer. 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 has been my experience that those who come into contact with the MOQ each interpret it in their own fashion and thereby give it meaning. Before that, it is meaningless. Robert Pirsig is an author and Phaedrus is a fictional character in his books. They are not the same. It seems tantamount to judging Shakespeare on the qualities of Hamlet. 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. Also, that there seems to be as many interpretations of the MOQ as there are contributors to this site raises the suspicion that there's reallly less of a fundamental nature here than meets the eye. Since experience is value I find little surprise in each of us interpreting the MOQ in a unique fashion. Actually the surprise would be that we did! Further, Marco, Andrea and Gerhard find plenty in the MOQ to support humanitarian morality even though I cannot, and even though Pirsig abandoned
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Hello all! In a message dated 7/2/01 4:23:22 PM GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will now re-examine the MOQ in the light of an author who may be pulling our collective legs. One must accept that ones heroes will inevitably have clay feet? All the best, Squonk. :-) 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
RE: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Platt, The Latin philosopher Seneca used to say When I talk about virtue, I'm not talking about my virtue. Hypocrisy? No, if you are sincere. This vegetarian passage is a minor point. Pirsig states even that all his work is immoral: Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity. But there's no solution: a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. (Ch. 5) Pirsig here states he has two *voices* inside, suggesting different approaches. A similar point is raised in the infamous passage about socialism we all know very well. From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality. (Ch. 17) Even here, you find that what's most moral from a static point is not the best option. Even here we have two voices. In both cases, a *dynamic mix* of both points seems to be reasonable. And how could it be otherwise? The MOQ claims that we have to be dynamic; we have always to leave free space for the unexpected, the unknown. So, how could we claim The Answer? Yes, eating meat is less moral than eating vegetables. But it could well be that eating *only* vegetables is a degeneration of another sort. I don't know if you are trying to use the MOQ as a moral compass, but if the compass says you have to go North, could well be that sometimes it is better to have a little detour. Ad maiora Marco p.s. Further, Marco, Andrea and Gerhard find plenty in the MOQ to support humanitarian morality even though I cannot, and even though Pirsig abandoned Lila at the end so he could continue his selfish cruise-- hardly a humanitarian act. Phaedrus tries uselessly to convince her to stay with him, and is sad when she goes (ch. 31), so he is not selfish. Rigel will bring her to the Giant, as he could not allow that two singles create a *new society*. P. is not glad, but the doll says that it is a good conclusion (ch. 32). Lila is a religion with one only follower, and she isn't going to let him get anything on her from here on he's putty in her hands. And Phaedrus is another individual religion as well. Yes, only the individual is superior to the giant, but it doesn't mean that a selfish loneliness is the right way to build the individual. The time they had together has taught both something. My humanitarian morality is just that: to give anyone the possibility to create, grow, and follow his/her personal religion. Then good luck to everyone. 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
Re: MD Pirsig's hypocrisy
Platt I'm looking at my watch. The time is 14 miutes and 10 seconds past 1 o'clock in the morning. Would this change if I were a murderer, a rapist or a child molester (I'm none of these I hasten to add - honest!). Of course it wouldn't. In the same way, Pirsigs MoQ is entirely unaffected by his moral shortcomings. He may be a hypocrite or worse (personally I don't think so - he is merely human) but I honestly cannot see how it affects his Metaphysics. There is a book about to be (or possibly already) published about the personal life of Shakespeare. Apparently he had homosexual tendencies (Gosh), paid insufficient attention to his family and was generally a not very nice chap. So what? Should I remember this as I read the Tempest, King Lear or Macbeth. Why, fercrissakes? The MoQ is a statement about reality. Pirsig is part of that reality but not it's entireity - the MoQ would be as true a statement about reality whether he existed or not. The MoQ gives us a target to aim for - a bullseye is great but not necessary. To be the best that you can be is the important thing. 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
