[MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ

[Michael Poloukhine]

> Ham wrote:
> Unfortunately, Pirsig has compounded the problem by subtitling LILA
> "An Inquiry into Morals", thus setting himself up as a moralist.  I
> think we all  realize by now that
> Pirsig's Quality thesis is no such thing. 
MP: I think the "set up" was not on Pirsig's part but on those who can't allow 
themselves more than one understanding of "morals," who don't allow for 
Dynamic experience in understanding of such things.

I see plenty of "moral" implications in the Quality thesis. I'd argue it is nothing 
BUT a moral thesis. I refer back to my comments about it all being a very 
Schopenhauer-esque idea, but with the notable and paradigm altering slope 
being imparted to the flat Schopenhauer plane of "it all just is."

That the word "morals" has such static weight is not the problem of Pirsig's 
MoQ, which I find deeply moralistic in the broadest understanding of morality. 
Its a problem of the static latching others have imbued the concept of "morals" 
in a practical, and notably societal reality.

But seems to me, we should not fear a "moral" label to MoQ just as we should 
not fear "faith" one. We should simply encourage broader, dynamically open 
understandings of those otherwise societally statically charged terms.

My attempts with this abortion discussion, to be sure ill-fated from a statistical 
perspective, are nothing more than another attempt to see if those who 
(supposedly) understand MoQ better than I do can help shed light on the 
practical realities in which Pirsig has set up MoQ as a better, fuller, more 
encompassing way of understanding.

> Ham wrote:
> This may be why you're not scoring with the MoQists on this
> particular topic, Michael.

MP: Not sure what you mean by "scoring." 

I'm just trying to learn about MoQ and notably its practical attributes to 
experiencing reality, to living. I had hoped to have more success in theoretic 
and logical analysis in this regard from those who are here as the MoQ's 
standard bearers. I am frustrated in this regard; I wonder if I wouldn't be better 
off just sorting it out for myself and right/wrong along with the rest be damned.

Seems like what MoQers here have done; I find little consistency in 
understanding of MoQ among folks here. It seems to all be static defense of 
personal interpretations, not a process of ongoing introspective questioning. In 
that sense it does seem like a "scoring" process rather than a collaborative 
search / inquire / learn / reveal process.

Maybe I sense this because I wear the colors normally attributed by MoQers 
here to the "opposing team"?

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."