----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@cbvnol.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:35 PM
Subject: MD 12 Immoral Acts
> Hi All:
>
> Ever since it's been brought to light that Pirsig (Phaedrus) considers
> eating meat to be immoral, I wondered what other specific activities the
> Great Author judges to be immoral. A review of LILA has unearthed the
> following no-no's in Pirsig's world. Here are 12 specific immoral acts
> according to the MOQ.
>
> A. It is immoral to make a movie out of a metaphysics, and
> presumably, any work that is primarily an intellectual pattern of value.
> From this I assume it was immoral to make *The Fountainhead*
> starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal.
Oh oh I've got a good one. The Matrix! That got plenty of people thinking
about metaphysics. I've been doing some thinking about what it would take
to make a popular movie about Quality, and I think a revolution one may be
good. The plots of Atlas Shrugged and The Matrix are both about revolutions
of one level of dynamic quality over the oppressive lower level. Maybe it
could be about the triumph of those with the perception of dynamic quality
over the intellectuals much like Atlas Shrugged was about the triumph of the
intellectuals over society. Maybe this could be the next MF :)
> C. It is immoral for children to be dominated by their parents. From this
> I assume disciplining a child is immoral.
No, not at all. Do you remember the section talking about the way society
dominates aspiring scientists and then "excretes them out" when they're
finished? I think there's a similarity between societies intellectual
domination of aspiring scientists and parent's intellectual domination of
their aspiring children. Here's a few examples -
The child continually asks questions and the parents get angry at the child
until the child stops questioning the world around him and begins accepting
the static societal norms at face value.
The child asks the parent why he needs to do something and the parent
replies "Because I said so" instead of explaining it logically. Once again
static societal values are preserved. An interesting note - One of my
friend's parents explained their reasons logically to him and he's one of
the most fascinating and philosophical people I know
The child is taught about the existence of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Later the belief in the existence if things beyond the senses such as these
are shown to be wrong, often through ridicule.
> F. It is immoral to put philosophy in the service of any social
> organization or dogma. From this I assume it was immoral for
> America's founding fathers to draw upon English philosophers for their
> Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I think this requires quite few qualifications. The founding fathers
fathers used English philosophers to create a government based on individual
rights. Hilter used, or rather bastardized ideas from the Bhagavad(sp?)
Gita and Nietsche to create, well, you know what. It's pretty obvious that
Pirsig is referring to what Hitler did, but at the moment I can't think of
an explanation of the difference more in depth than founding fathers were
"intellectually subserviant" to the English philosophies by basing their
values on them, while Hitler made the philosophies subserviant to his own
ideas by changing them to what he wanted and then using their prior
credibility to his advantage
> H. It is immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic
> Quality. From this I assume that Kuhn, Feyerabend and other modern
> philosophers of science are correct in saying that scientific truth, like
> moral truth, is relative.
Or to suppress Dynamic Quality while enjoying all the benefits of it, aka
Objectivism. I read Atlas Shrugged right before I read Lila, so I've been
comparing the 2 quite a bit. The main characters in Atlas Shrugged deny the
value of subjective ideas (it refers to it as mysticism) not based on
science but keep getting all these great new ideas popping into their heads.
Unfortunately they never exaplain what objective source these ideas come
from. Also, they try to give money an objective value by using coins made
of gold. See the hypocracy there?
> I. It is immoral for sane people to force cultural conformity by
> suppressing the Dynamic drives that produce insanity. From this I
> assume the MOQ approves of legalizing drugs.
According to the MoQ, it would be moral for those who have achieved the
intellectual level to move on to the Dynamic Level through drugs. This
isn't such a bad idea - opium and other drugs has led to some great poetry
and music. Unfortunately the laws are created by those at the social level
in a democracy, and I can't imagine them excluding themselves with a law
like that.
> L. It is immoral to create a metaphysics. From this I assume Pirsig's
> excuse, *Ahh, do it anyway* is the same excuse he uses when he
> enjoys a fat, juicy steak.
Yeah, people who want to do that should just go and talk a Zen master.
> In case anyone is interested, I object to A, C, F, H, I and L and
wonder
> if others, like me, can't buy Pirsig's moral sanctions completely.
It seems that problems with the moral sanctions are often caused by applying
them to the wrong level.
Stephen M.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:25 BST