Hi all, I will continu my efforts to get any sense in the " moral " debate...
If it don 't have any positive affect, there is no harm done.
The law of gravity works upon the four levels presented by Pirsig and discussed
by the Moq.
Inorganic_ gravity works out there, we can see its presence, ' it holds ' us here.
Biological_ gravity constructs our universe, out bodies, our world, is part of our
Reality.
Social_ along the lines of gravity we built our society, we have to in a sense.
Intellect_ we understand it, we apply it, we use it.
In a sense, the Intellectual interpretation of gravity is thus more moral than the
other levels along the latter, so to some extend, Intellect has giving ' rights '
to the social application of Gravity to exist and so on.
Quite an astonishing fact if we think about it, if Intellect has giving the social
level no moral rights at all to apply Gravity into its own concept of existence
where do you end up if not nowhere !?
But back to the essence,
Gravity is more or less moral to whom or to what !?
If is it more, more to which laws !?
Those other laws of nature ?
Is Gravity more or less ' moral ' to f.e the law of dynamics and magnetism !?
I don 't see to which extend it can be ' right/ true ' to say that Gravity acts
more ' moral ' upon our material bodies than magnetism does.
I don 't see to which extend f.e dia- magnetism ( general characteristic of
matter; caused by the influence of an external magnetic field by which the
electrons in an atom change their movement) is less ' moral ' than Gravity.
How can, like in Pirsigs view, magnetism as a less moral law of nature be determinated as right or wrong without the f.e religious or emotional implica-
tions attached to it !?
To what it will be determinated !? What is the background if not human.
It sounds IMO, that Pirsig did use a tautology in order, like Elephant also
did suggest to get a political message across. I have nothing against such
efforts, on the contrary, but we have to be carefull if we ever put through its conclusions.
And what about new dicoveries made, new inventions, all due to our Intellect !?
How do we place f.e the notion that there is another law of nature working
in the universe !?
Gravity holds our universe together, but a still, but in IMO a very important
issue concerning the MOQ, disputed theory claims that the universe
expands beyond the working of Gravity.
That is, gravity works between two or more points/ objects. Beyond a certain
point the gravity pull ends, stars loose their powers of attraction upon each-
other.
Is it moral of that LAW to put us, in a far future, into a complete darkness?
If you give moral rights or moral reasons to act to the forces of nature, you
imply IMO that they have a insight to work upon those rights. You imply that
they have some kind of knowledge about their own doing.
To what extend can we distract morality out of the fact that the us surrounding
stars are moving away from us beyond our current understanding of the law
of gravity !?
Here you see the appearance of a more moral level beyond the one of
Intellect ( the true Solipsistic Mind !?).
Here you have an implication that IMO, the latter in which Pirsig presents
his view of Reality ( those four levels) can be and should be shuffled along
the way of our human perspective.
Here you have the implication that an inorganic ( in origin) law of nature has
influence upon biological entities ( stars) ( to some extend on us too) without
that the above situated levels of the social or Intellect granted those levels
RIGHTS to do so or even did express any moral implication towards their
existence.
Here you have IMO two lower moral levels with influence over the above
situated social and Intellectual level, what according to Pirsig can 't be done
because the above situated levels did not granted them MORAL RIGHTS !!
Immoral the most like it according to Pirsig_ a lower form ( how complex it would turn out to be or not) of evolution is trying to devour a higher one.
Moreover two in one blow, and Intellectual or not, there is nothing you can do
about this fact, you can 't contradict laws of natures, less moral or not...
The only law I can distract and the one I can agree on, is that in spite of all
our Intellect, that we are not so intelligent as we wish to be.
Recognizing that could mean, that due to that fact, I wish to live my life along
those lines of recognisation, but when I look outthere towards the Reality,
well...I'm lost...
In todays democracies noone will accept or even think about it for that matter
to put their actions, beliefs, traits and habits along lines of more or less mora-
lity. How would you explain to someone that his genes are confined in their
expression by higher social moral laws !?
Remerber, it could turn the other way round, that is, in a dispute a very good
lawyer could turn this in his client favor. And like some examples already
show, murderers will walk free...Where is the moral in that !?
Explain this to a mother who lost her child...I ' ve tried and lost...
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