Hi Marco, Brian, Stephen M., All:
Here's a summary of reactions to what Pirsig said are immoral acts:
Pirsig: It is immoral to make a movie out of a metaphysics.
Platt: It was immoral to make "The Fountainhead."
Marco: Not immoral when director/producer of the movie is also the
author.
Brian: Not immoral if movie was merely inspired by metaphysics.
Stephen: According to Pirsig it was also immoral to make "The Matrix."
Pirsig: It is immoral for a society to restrain truth for its own purposes.
Platt: Those who restrained the truth about Kennedy's sexual
escapades acted immorally.
Marco: National security can require restraint of truth. Ex: D-Day.
Brian: Agrees with Platt.
Pirsig: It is immoral for children to be dominated by their parents.
Platt: Disciplining a child is immoral.
Marco: Teaching is not dominating, not immoral.
Brian: Discipline is not a form of domination.
Stephen: Intellectual domination of children required to preserve
societal values.
Pirsig: It is immoral to speak against a people because of their genetic
characteristics.
Platt: One should not speak ill of another solely on the basis of his skin
color.
Marco: Agrees.
Brian: Agrees.
Pirsig: It is not immoral to speak against a person because of his
cultural characteristics if those cultural characteristics are immoral.
Platt: One is right to speak out against member of a ghetto gang no
matter the individual's ethnic background.
Marco: Agrees. Be careful of accusing police of racial profiling.
Brian: Agrees.
Pirsig: It is immoral to put philosophy in the service of any social
organization or dogma.
Platt: It was immoral for America's founding fathers to draw upon
English philosophers for their Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution.
Marco: No. It is Immoral only if a philosophy is created to justify a
government.
Brian: No. We base all actions, social and otherwise, on a philosophy
of some kind.
Stephen: Requires qualification. Founding fathers used philosophy
correctly. Hitler used philosophy to give him legitimacy, but twisted it to
suit his own ends.
Pirsig: It is immoral for truth to be subordinated to social values.
Platt: Pirsig concludes that the practicality test of truth of William James
is not only immoral, but dangerous.
Brian: Not convinced Pirsig is right.
Pirsig: It is immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress
Dynamic Quality.
Platt: Kuhn, Feyerabend and other modern philosophers of science are
correct in saying that scientific truth, like moral truth, is relative.
Marco: Pirsig says there are competitive truths. Scientific truth is a
myth; it's scientism, not science.
Brian: Agrees with Pirsig.
Stephen: Agrees with Pirsig. Compares suppression of DQ with Ayn
Rand's philosophy of Objectivism which cannot explain where new
ideas comes from.
Pirsig: It is immoral for sane people to force cultural conformity by
suppressing the Dynamic drives that produce insanity.
Platt: The MOQ approves of legalizing drugs.
Marco: Agrees with Platt, but it is immoral to overuse them. Red wine
has good social value in Italian culture.
Brian: Not sure.
Stephen: Agrees with MOQ. One can move on from the intellectual level
to the Dynamic level through drugs.
Pirsig: It is immoral to commit suicide.
Marco: Agrees, but euthanasia is an individual right.
Brian: Agrees.
Pirsig: It is immoral to "karma dump" on an invented devil group like
Jews, blacks, whites, capitalists, communists, etc.
Platt: Hillary Clinton was immoral to blame right wing extremists for her
husband's infidelity.
Marco: No. Hillary can have opinions and rightfully blame those against
her.
Brian: Very much agrees with Platt.
Pirsig: It is immoral to create a metaphysics
Platt: Pirsig's excuse, "Ahh, do it anyway" is the same excuse he uses
when he enjoys a fat, juicy steak.
Marco: Not immoral to create a metaphysics because it is an
intellectual activity.
Brian: Agrees with Platt and with Pirsig's realistic attitude.
Stephen: "Yeah, people who want to do that should just go and talk (to)
a Zen master."
Platt's Summary: I can't buy Pirsig's moral sanctions completely.
Marco's Summary: I don't find problems with Pirsig's statements. I find
problems with "dogmatic" use of moral statements. They should be
used as guides, not definitive answers.
Stephen's Summary: Problems with moral sanctions are often caused
by applying them to the wrong level.
Comment: It seems among the four of us that Brian and I are the hard
liners with Stephen middle of the road and Marco the most doubtful of
Pirsig's sanctions. The point I've been trying to make in this and recent
posts is the considerable variance in individual understanding of the
MOQ. Compared to Ayn Rand's or Ken Wilber's writings, Pirsig seems
to allow for much broader interpretations. Maybe that's deliberate in
order to allow DQ greater room to roam. The downside is that only a
very few ideas ever get latched.
ed: This is a benefit of the MOQ. Static moral codes are easy only for
obvious germ vs doctor situations. But the static codes don't do much good
for tougher choices, and it is here that a dynamic morality is best.
Disagreements can be looked at from within a rational basis and this
provides a greater likelihood of settlement, as compared to using
black/white static codes.
Platt
P.S. Please correct me if I have falsely presented anyone's position by
editing.
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
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