Kenneth thanks PzEph for his comments but he will go on ' readin' into '
Platts vision of the Moq, what he personnally has nothing against, but he
finds it intruiging...
----- Original Message -----
From: Platt Holden <pholden@cbvnol.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: MD Moq and other species/ Kill the Germ !!
KENNETH
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 !?
PLATT:
If you mean Pirsig favors capitalism and free enterprise over
socialism and controlled markets, I agree.
<< To PzEph, I didn 't mean the free market, indeed !
But that is/ was a first impression, a strange feeling perhaps...but one I
saw
tru' some posts. In the post following here below are some comments
towards that point that the MOQ IMO should think about...>>
PLATT:
I wouldn't say that the aids virus and Jews are on the same moral
level. Humans take moral precedence over germs. That was
Pirsig's point in setting up the different levels with the inorganic
the least moral and intellect the most within a total moral order of
reality. That way you get a rational rather than an emotional or
religious basis for determining right and wrong.
<< Very true of course, I mixed up two seperate lines. But no harm done,
the message came across.
But, there is always a but...does the inorganic level, the least moral, have
no
rights to be preserved, to grow, to exist !?
Does, in a metaphysical way of speaking, it have a MORAL ground to
stand on !?
And if so, which !?
Like I understand it, there is thus no more LOWER moral ground where
upon the inorganic level can and may exist/ stand etc !?
Hm, take an idea, not that Intellectual mambo jambo, but an idea seen as
the superficial conceptual term we use if we ever talk about one, like in
the sentence..." I have an idea." Nothing is said here, but there is
something
there...you understand ?????
What is it ? Organic, biological, social, intellectual !?
Well, IMO, it is ( in origin) INORGANIC.
An idea becomes organic, biological, social, intellectual if we ever expe-
rience/ see/ hear/ taste/ feel/ ...its results, its outcome, its warmth, its
cold...
So, seen in your terms, an idea exist ( as an inorganic entitiy) on the very
least moral level of reality and Intellect, where an idea normally ' resides
'
in the first place, as we understand it, is the most more level of all !?
Didn 't I read something a time ago, in the posts of Richard E about how
it was impossible that some level can influence another two steps up the
latter or whatever !?
How do you explain than the above, inorganic material influences our
Intellect where, and also in Pirsig's view there is some hierarchial latter
!?
On which moral grounds does the inorganic exist if not the next level
( organic) gives it some " rights " to exist. That is_ to which level gives
the inorganic level moral rights !? Inorganic or not, its exists !!
That is, is there another level beyond the inorganic !? The inorganic
can 't come into existence out of the blue, isn 't it !? It too must have
than a moral base !
And if, in the extreme, the inorganic is just a notion of our Intellect, in
order to shape our Reality better, we do understand it than better, the
whole pyramid of the assumptions comes down, because all of the next
levels are taking their moral rights upon the lower one. And on the bottom
there is the very least, the inorganic, which as seen here above, don 't
even than can exist...
PLATT:
I see no moral difference between saving the patient or killing the
germ. They are both sides of the same coin.
<< Like, Elephant have advocated so clearly, no!! they are different sides
of the coin.
It is a question of priorty !
The first concern had to be the patient, not killing the germ. If all your
efforts
are conducted towards to the germ you " exclude " the patient out of the
general process. There is a difference in approach, and IMO an very
important one.
And, yes, most of my concerns have to do with the moral importance
of the person. You can 't never exclude the person out of any metaphysical
approach by which you try to describe him. Quality or not, the human is
a product of nature, and like you said Platt, the laws of nature are moral
laws, and I can understand that, but due to that fact, the person is a moral
object in such a way that he, as you say, determines right or wrong in a
rational way. But a human is also, and will be forever, emotional and
religious.
PLATT:
According to Pirsig, moral is more than a human trait. Morality is
reality. The laws of nature at the inorganic and biological level are
moral laws. The laws of society are moral laws. The laws of logic
and mathematics at the intellectual level are moral laws. You
appear to limit morality to social morality alone and consider it
solely a human phenomena that deals with interpersonal
relationships.
<< Ok, here I understand Moral in the sense of " better " than the
previous,
in the sense of " giving direction ". As a guideline for evolution/ Reality
eventually to evolve in aspects of Quality ( what in a sense is a moral
law).
But,...here we go again...if the laws at the biological level are moral laws
in the sense of better/ Qualitative, giving direction than IMO, you would
encounter the same problems as I /we have in memetics.
That is, you have to admit that than all the perversities/ extremes and
misconducts are of nature 's giving and therefor can 't/ and may not be
contradicted. People's freedom and equality depends on such assumption.
Moreover, in the MOQ, explained as above it would mean that those
mentioned perversities are to some extend recognized by nature as " moral
laws ".
This conclusion gives enormous consequences not only on the next level,
the social but also on the intellectual level.
It would ask tremendous intellectual endeavour from everyone to see tru'
the complications of such conclusion...
Also, if we take the notion serious, on the social level not only the above
would bring forward certain dangerous consequences, but we have to
consider than the possibility that conflict in general ( arguments, war,
mur-
der etc) are in/ to some extand " moral " (a)effects of to how society is
developed, constructed and characterised.
In addition, I just think of something.
If the laws of nature are moral laws, than genes, must " carry " within a
certain amount of " moral info ", moreover the social level grant in some
extend " moral rights " to the genes...
Something to think about if you don 't want to fall into Social
Darwinisme...
or worse...if you don 't want to fall into the Right...
PLATT:
There's always the danger that any political group. Right or Left,
can twist philosophy to serve its own ends. Hitler used Nietzsche.
Stalin (who killed more innocents than Hitler) used Marx. Priests
used "caring about others" as preached in Bible to justify the
Inquisition. That's why Pirsig wrote: To "put philosophy in the
service of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a
lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one." (LILA, Chap.
29.)
<< Does Pirsig idea about Morality, Quality and Intellect not the same ?
If the MOQ is ever accepted as the morality of preserving social/ biological
and/ or inorganic value patterns it too becomes a " philosophy " in the
service of that society wherein it is applied to !
Thus, it would be immoral to use the MOQ as a potential practical appli-
cation in order to get society going.
( Danila Oder idea of Prescriptive and Descriptive comes to my mind)
Or will it only been used as a Intellectual/ Qualitative/ Moral tool to
start/
to set up practical more moral laws/ tools !?
Thus the MOQ becomes a lower form of Intellectual evolution if we ever
try to put it in practical use !?
So, what would than be the higher evolutionary, the more MORAL form !?
I know, it is a long one, but I got the flow...
Thanks for reading, write back...
Next post(s) tomorrow...my cats are hungry...
Best regards to all,
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