Dear Platt,
I can't resist... I answer YES to the most questions, with few
clarifications :
a.
> Morality exists outside of a social/cultural context?
YES
b.
> We possess a sense of quality that is a genuine perception?
YES
c.
> Values are a separate category from subjects or objects?
MORE THAN YES.... in the sense that IMO value is more than a category.
Subject/object is a possible division of value....
d.
> People have different ideas about Quality because of different
patterns
> of life history?
YES
e.
> The world is primarily a moral order?
YES
f.
> Everything on earth emerged as the result of ethical activity?
YES
g.
> Evolution is a moral process?
YES. But also the attempt to preserve the status quo can be moral
(confront the i. question).
h.
> Dynamic Quality is pulling the patterns of life forward to greater
levels
> of versatility and freedom?
YES. But the main "conscious" goal is rather to escape FROM static
conditions.
i.
> Without Dynamic Quality the world cannot grow? Without static Quality,
> it cannot last?
YES. That's why both DQ and SQ are moral aspects of the same reality.
j.
> Individual human beings are composites of four moral levels:
> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual?
YES
k.
> Everyone runs the same "me" program that doesn't belong to anyone?
If you mean here that "my" life is not really mine, as I'm composed of a
mix of patterns coming from the past, inhabiting me temporarily, and
lasting after me.... I agree. But also I'd say that, during this time
while they are inhabiting me, this "me" exists... and partially this
"me" is able to create / change patterns as it's also a dynamic entity.
The problem is the "belong" term. We all share all our "me" programs....
(a sort of Sovietic Kolkhoz :-). So the patterns don't belong to anyone
as a private property... they belong to everyone.
l.
> Cells have a special intelligence all their own?
Again a problem of terms... IMO intelligence is the specific biologic
function to read into reality. It's the tool for intellect. The
"intelligence" of single cells is obviously another thing. It's their
capability to interact with reality in order to preserve and duplicate
their life. It has nothing to do with intellect so I'm cautious using
the term "intelligence" (however it's not so bad, as they use the
"intelligent" term also for uranium bombs ;-| )
m.
> Morality of the biological world is based on might makes right?
Here my English is flawing. I answer YES as I trust. :-)
n.
> Truth is built by the language of the group?
YES
o.
> More than one set of truths exists?
YES
p.
> High quality truth is empirical, logical, elegant and brief?
YES
q.
> Communism and socialism are programs for intellectual control of
> society?
YES
r.
> Since the 60's there has been a drop in intellectual and social
quality?
How can we say it? It seems YES, but....
maybe in the USA, let's remember that USA are not the world.
Let's talk of social quality. I don't see all this great social quality
up to the sixities.
In the 30's/40's we had fascism and nazism and the WWII, and the Shoa,
and Stalin, and Hiroshima; In the 50's and 60's the cold war, Vietnam,
Budapest and Praga, the nuclear weapons in the hands of few people; In
the 70's terrorism in West Europe, Pollution on a planetary scale,
Pinochet in Chile and Vileda in Argentina... I could go on with a list
of problems and tragedies (what about Africa? And Palestine? And
Northern Ireland? And Yugoslavia?). IMO every period has good and bad
things. Only after many years we will understand what's good in our
times.
For what about intellectual quality... as you know I do believe that the
intellectual era has not been still estabilished, in the sense that up
to now intellect has mostly been a servant of society; or it has just
been able in few occasions to escape from society, but not to dominate
it fairly. Probably in these times intellect is in the hands of the
market more than in the 60's, so I could agree on the drop of
intellectual quality.
s.
> Cooperation without coercion is a devastating fiction?
Please, explain me this point... especially the "devastating" adjective.
t.
> Reality is understood by every infant?
YES..... Understood? If you say that also cells are in some way
intelligent, well, also cells in some way understand reality. It's not
easy to understand what does it mean to understand.
conclusion:
> Answering all questions positively makes you a full-blooded Pirsigian.
> But the real test is how many of those things you say you believe
you'd
> be willing and able to explain and defend in conversations with others
> at school, at work or among friends. I've found the very first
question
> the toughest in trying to persuade others to at least consider the
MOQ.
>
as I'm a terrible stubborn fellow, I think I could explain and defend
all my answers (with the positive attitude of listening to the other's
viewpoints). But usually I don't talk about Pirsig and or the MOQ in my
everyday life. Of course I discuss a lot and explain my points of view
about things, but I don't want to be seen like a Jesuit in the mission
for a new religion. I never try to persuade others to consider the MOQ.
I never suggest to visit the Italian MOQ site, or to read Lila. I like
the Socratic way of discussion: rising doubts, more than offering
answers. The most important thing is to persuade people to search.
tks for reading.
Ciao
Marco.
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 - 16:00:59 BST