[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 2 May 2010 at 18:02, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Platt,
> 
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 8:08 AM,  <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Andre,
> >
> > Can you give us some examples of "spiritual rationality?" Sounds
> > suspiciously like theology. But, of course, your adamant denial of
> > anything approaching theism precludes that avenue.
> >
> > While you're at it, could you explain what "spirit" means in your world?
> 
> 
> Steve:
> I always thought that Pirsig means that rationality is not divorced
> from value, meaning, and purpose as some have thought. Pirsig's "new
> spiritual rationality" is the rationality that one is using when logic
> is thought of as a set of guidelines for getting good conclusions from
> good premises rather than cold stale facts about how the world works
> independently of human interests.

Hi Steve,

Two points. First, the word "spiritual" bothers me as it did Pirsig in the 
Annotations. Its meanings are too close to theism and the S/O split of 
body/spirit. Using the word takes us further away from Quality rather than 
closer to it. 

Second, there's no assurance that reason of any kind can lead to good 
premises or conclusions. Any point of view can be rationalized to a fare-
the-well. All horrors perpetrated by governments on humanity have been 
rationally justified as being in the public good. Further, the scientific 
method, considered by many to be morally neutral and thus a good 
method to use, cannot explain why being neutral is good.

The main problem as I see it, and is demonstrated here almost every 
day, is that DQ, the driving force of evolution, cannot be defined and thus 
becomes whatever anyone has a mind to make it. Being an integral part 
of the MOQ, this lack of definition leaves the MOQ wide open to varied 
interpretations, depending on whatever axe one has to grind, the axe 
being sharpened by reason and selective evidence..  

Finally, it's discouraging to say the least, that some here, often those 
implying superior reasonableness, find it necessary to belittle and 
demonize those with whom they disagree. Going down that path can only 
lead to more instances of man's inhumanity to man rather than the path 
towards harmony as envisioned by the MOQ.  

Regards,
Platt