ELEPHANT TO KENNETH:
I don't think that there's so very much you say that I can disagree with.
Of course it is the patient that matters. I suppose that means that I
didn't express myself very well....
Except when you say "My point is, I don 't buy that moral stuff." Seems to
me like you are arguing some pretty moral stuff. And you are arguing to a
morality that isn't just a human trait, but which put's human actions into a
moral context. Just like MOQ. I could be wrong though.
In fact, I've a degree of sympathy with your veiw that on one level the
moral is just another intellectual (in your terms 'human') pattern, and so
not the ultimate Good - but my point would be that to have escaped all
intellectual patterns in a flight towards Dynamic Quality itself would be to
have become so saintly as no longer to be arguing with people in
moq_discuss.
Church is for sinners, right?
Pzeph
-----------------
From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 21:45:24 +0100
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Subject: MD Moq and other species/ Kill the Germ !!
To Platt, Danila and PzEph
Platt,
Why you say our Intellect is more Dynamic than an eucalyptus tree putting
( moral ) between quotes ?
Do you mean by this that both are synonyms ?
I don 't think so !
Pirsig continues:
First, there were moral codes....supremacy....etc
IMO, and not only there ( and not to my surprise though), is Pirsig not a
little
bit of the Right !?
Other species have no " rights " other than those we grant...
Dangerous argument !
We can take an analogy...to show how dangerous this is...
Also to PzEph, same argument here....is it moral to kill aids !?
Follow me on this one,
I think it is more moral to keep the welfare of the people in mind. Killing
the
germs like the aidsvirus should be the consequence of that process, not the
other way round.
Killing the germ must not be the goal , it is eventually that in the end I
know,
but in the first place, we must care about the people already infected.
Healing people must be the goal, not killing the germ !
That is moral ! The other way round is not !
You ' forget ' about the people if you do that ! Not very noble, not very
moral !!
Analogy,
Saying the killing of all the Jews was just a consequence of a social
process
in Germany would not be moral wouldn 't it !?
But when processes like that comes down to some ' humanfactor ' we all
suddenly change.
We must stay ferm and be consequent !!
If the goal is to kill the germ, you disgard the interest of the patient.
The patient must come first. Like in Germany during WO II, solving the
social problem should have come first, not the killing of the Jews and
others.
But Hitler thought it would be better the other way round.
In fact, in such a way he did weaken the society and all the levels
supporting
that society.
Another exmaple,
Anti-Biotics. Kill the germ !!
We invent a lot of anti- biotics in order to kill diseases and in order to
treat
patients. But, nowadays, anti- biotics doesn 't work properly, that due
to the extensive use of it, viruses become immuun to it.
It was moral to kill the germ in order to heal the patient, but we lost our
moral
background. The goal is now ' kill the germ ', not the welfare of the
patient.
In the end he will we cured, now still.
Killing the germ should be the consequence of anti- biotics, not its goal !
Another example,
MAP, Belgium. MAP, is Manure Action Plan, to reduce the manure heap.
In order to reduce the grade of nitrate in the manure, politics invented
MAP.
Not a good idea though !
The result is that those measures makes it agriculture very difficult if not
impossible.
Is it moral to protect the environment !? Yes !
Is it moral to the farmer, to society, to the agriculture community, to the
agricultural industries to reduce the nitrate- grade !? No, most of them go
out of biusness. Other measures are not taken. Very moral indeed....
My point is, I don 't buy that moral stuff.
Moral is a human trait, and saying that the MOQ has no qualms, morally,
for human intellect to destroy other species so long as the levels which
" support " intellect remain stable and viable, is IMO below all marks.
Here, IMO, you give the Right all the arguments it needs to eliminate all
' not- supporting- groups ' of society. The Right will eventually destroy
other
" species ", like the Jews and the Right will see to it that all other
supporting
levels are NOT weakened in the process.
Beauty !? The morality of preserving social, biological and inorganic value
solely on account of their beauty Platt !?
What if the Right find Jews ugly !?
The Right will bring arguments forward about what is beauty and what is not.
You are on a dangerous path here...
Think about the consequences !!
I did not yet read Pirsig to its full end, but if that is the underlying
message
of his books and writings, that Right stuff, well I think I will join Struan
and
become a critic...
Maybe I am in the wrong here, but saying that Intellect has moral supremacy
over other species...I have doubts, it feels somewhere wrong to me...
Can you prove me wrong...!?
All of the best regards,
Kenneth
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:57 BST