[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 11 Nov 2009 at 18:20, craigerb at comcast.net wrote:

> [Platt] 
> >  Pirsig claims the MOQ explains ultimate reality. From his annotations to 
> > the Copleston paper: 
> "The MOQ, on the other hand, explains evil in evolutionary terms that 
> are compatible with its theory of ultimate reality." 
> 
> [Craig] 
> This quote of course does not say the explanation is an ULTIMATE 
> explanation, only that it is "compatible with the MoQ theory of ultimate reality." 

Platt
You're confusing an ultimate explanation with ultimate reality.    

> [Platt] 
> > I look to philosophy to provide ultimate explanations, and for 
> > me, Pirsig answers my questions better than any other 
> 
> But the MoQ's being the best explanation at any one time, does not make it 
> the ultimate explanation.  Do we have a complete understanding of the MoQ? 
> 
> If not then we don't have an ulltimate explanation.

Platt
You're confusing understanding with explanation.      
 
> 
> [Platt] 
> >  why  positive and negative charges are attracted to one another. Because 
> > they value that attraction as a consequence of the world's moral order. 
> 
> 
> Why do they value that attraction as a consequence of the world's moral order?| 
> Or why does the world's moral order make that attraction of value to them? 
> Why does the world even have a moral order? 
> Why is there quality rather than none? 

Platt
Pirsig answers all these questions in Lila. In sum, " . . . a world from 
which value is subtracted becomes unrecognizable." (Lila, 9)

Platt