[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[MarshaV]

At 03:26 AM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
>
Wow!

Now I'm really spooked.  In these last dozen posts of this Subject, I 
am basically agreeing with Ham.  And I don't see a contradiction 
between the what he is stating and the 11/16 quote.

Marsha


>Marsha quoted [on 11/16] a few passages from ZAMM indicating Quality
>isn't "assumed to be non-polar".  But I see what you're saying, and as an
>articulation of the ethical nature of the intellect, perhaps it could be a
>supplement to the MoQ.
>
>Cheers,
>Laramie
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Ham Priday<mailto:hampday1 at verizon.net>
>   To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org<mailto:moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>   Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:45 AM
>   Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism and the MOQ
>
>
>
>   Hi Laramie --
>
>   > How could man discover good and bad in an amoral universe?
>
>   He not only can but does. "Amoral" simply means being neither moral nor
>   immoral, neither all-good nor all-bad.  The problem with Pirsig's 
> Quality is
>   that it is assumed to be non-polar; that is, we tend to equate it with
>   Goodness.  Although we sometimes hear an MoQer speak of a "low-quality"
>   idea, it is uncommon and most likely offered in jest.  That's 
> another reason
>   I prefer "Value": it is a measure of things, like the proverbial scales of
>   justice.
>
>   As I said to SA,
>   > If reality were perfectly moral, and you were part of
>   > it, then you would be perfectly moral, too.  In fact,
>   > you would know nothing of immorality.  How could
>   > we moralize -- distinguish goodness from badness
>   > -- if everything was already moral?  The whole point of
>   > experiencing life as a free individual is to realize the
>   > value of an amoral reality.