[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[X Acto]

Steve,
 I thought the premise behind the 4 levels was not only better understanding
but
the breaking of the paralysis of cultural relativism, and relativism in general,
I got the feeling throughout Lila that that was the problem western society faced.

and the arguement Pragmatism lacked

you know

virtue, excellence..betterness...Quality

virtually both books are about the feelings of emptiness and detachment
objectivism unleashes in the form of moral relativism. 

I agree it is not about what is true, but it IS about what is better.

beliefs are justified through use in expereince otherwise they have no value.

what else would be discussed than what values are better than others?

and what framework would yield those answers but MoQ?




I'm not sure how "I think therefore I am" figures into the conversation
in this regard.



-Ron



 


----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:46:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ

> Hi Ron,


> I do believe that the MoQ does provide a contextual framework for the human expereince
> Which promotes an understanding of relationships that do not draw apon cultural terms
> of agreement  but a much larger context of four static patterns of Quality which may be
> applied to and in, any cultural context.
> 
> I'm still unsure as to the ability to accurately judge cultures by it's standard though.
> 
> A good MoQ arguement to follow, and I invite Platt in on it, is this:
> 
> IS a culture that values intellectual quality  vs. one that does not, truly superior
> even if that cultures intellectual level destroys and undercuts it's social level?
> 
> IS a intellectually destructive society
> superior to
> a socially oppressive society?


Steve:

I disagree that Pirig saw anything acultural about what he was doing based om his take on "I think therefore I am."

As for relativity, Pirsig saw the MOQ as giving us a way to talk about morals rather than as a solution to moral disagreements. For support of this claim, see the following from his intro to LC:

"I’ve concluded that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ would be to block the
notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral problem in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The image in my mind as I wrote it was of a large football field that gave meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but did not decide which team would win. That was the point of the two opposing arguments over the death penalty described in Lila.That was the point of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic Quality. Both are moral arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just as two sides can go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim constitutionality, so two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that either the Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of moral rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption."

The above is only relativism if you believe in essences like The Moral Law or if you have bought into the philosophical promise of discovering an eternal foundation for our moral arguments. If you haven't, then I don't think you'd want to use the word relativism at all unless you encounter someone who takes the self-defeating position that nothing is better or worse than anything else.

Best,
Steve
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/