You ask a very good question which is probably the most important
comparison of subject-object metaphysics and MOQ. I feel that Pirsig
attempts prove that moral questions are irrelative or at least a lot less
relative than they were without MOQ. He proves this by the method of
induction, by showing that quality does exist, and that quality can be
applied to some moral questions irrelatively (the hot stove, doctors vs.
germs) and then makes the inference that quality can be similarly applied to
all moral questions. From there, however, it requires a leap of faith, that
all moral questions could (in theory) be irrelatively analyzed using the
principles of quality. The interesting thing though is that in practice, a
gray area does exist in MOQ, when some see more quality in one area and some
see more quality in another. These areas of moral relativity, however, only
seem to occur where you would expect them to, in transition areas between
levels or where tradeoffs of high and low quality occur at the same time
(eg. freedom + crime vs. social order + repression). So in a sense to answer
your question, yes there is moral relativity in MOQ, but morality in MOQ is
a lot less relative than traditionally speaking.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Mark Gelade
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:23 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Logical Conclusions Anyone?
Hi there:
If a static energy, for example, Islamic theocracy, is trying to overcome a
dynamic energy (Modernity), I personally have no problem seeing this as a
"moral issue" (a lower, repressive social system trying to negate a more
advanced, selectively open social system). Of course, as some have noted, a
bunch of questions follow, such as how to rate, or at least measure, the
morality of any specific tactic used to defend and/or propagate a respective
system. (i.e: suicide bombing not okay: laser-guided smart bombs okay.)
However, it must be admitted that my initial stance is inevitably
self-serving. I live in Modernity and, by and large, I experience it as
preferable over any other competing social construct out there. (I do like
the idea of the kibbutz: just too bad they have to be in the Middle East,
why not Concord, MA!)
I guess my neophyte question is, how does the MOQ address the "relativity"
of moral positions. Or does it even admit that relativity can even exist? Of
course, it's easy to dismiss relativity when it comes to sitting on a hot
stove (ouch!), but that experience is as 1 is to 100, or as an amoeba is to
a butterfly. Arriving at an "experiential" consensus on something as large
as a civilization seems to me a whole different kettle of fish. Not to
belabor the point, but I'm certain our fundamental Islamic friends, (you can
substitute any fundamentalist group here) would not concur that their system
is of a lower moral standing simply because it operates with the confines of
strict religious principles that deter dissent. What proof do we offer that
Modernity, for example, is preferable value? Is it just a feeling? We can
point to our advanced transportation, scientific, and numerous other
cultural constructs as evidence of our higher form of functioning, but I
don't think that cuts it. Or am I on a dangerous track here, even suggesting
that we can assign a moral value to any given society?
The American Indian culture certainly failed to attain any technological
advancement, yet I doubt Pirsig would call their society static and
modern-day America dynamic, and thus by extension condone the genocide of
the American Indian. Or would he?
Apologies if this seems a lame venue of inquiry, as I am brand new to this
discussion. Feel free to set me straight.
Mark
> From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:41:50 +0200
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: Re: MD Logical Conclusions Anyone?
>
> Hi Horse and all,
>
> Horse, I am glad that we agree that seeking revenge is a low quality
> response, and does not have much to do with legitimite defense. On this
> basis, I am trying very hard to have a constructive dialogue with you, but
> this is not helped by your distortions. . . .
>
>> Agreed - the big problem as I see it is to ensure that in defending
> oneself
>> innocents are safeguarded. I keep hearing talk of 'acceptable' levels of
> 'collateral
>> damage' and other such BS phrases which basically mean that so called
>> 'defenders of freedom' are prepared to kill anything within sight to
> achieve their
>> aims. . . .
>
> I do not think that accepting the inevitability of SOME level of
collateral
> damage means that one accepts ANY level of collateral damage. It is not my
> impression that anyone is out 'to kill anyone within sight'. As I said
> several times in my last post, war is messy and innocent people sometimes
> get killed. Sadly, that seems to have now been the case in Kabul.
>
> JONATHAN> >
>>> .... Horse has it backwards. Retribution is the Social
>>> pattern. Besides man, I know of no animal that avenges an attack on
> itself.
>>> On the other hand, self defense is an inherently biological behaviour. I
>>> know of plenty of cases where the animal will attack preemptively. You
> can
>>> demonstrate this by cornering a cat!!!
>>
>
> HORSE
>> Not the best comparison. A cat will generally run away when threatened -
> as will
>> the majority of animals. Under normal circumstances a cat will only
attack
> (other
>> than to eat or defend territory) when it is cornered and has absolutely
no
> other
>> option. Its actions are the result of the removal of choice and this
> causes it to
>> attack, responding to an immediate problem. There is no forward thought
>> involved.
>
> Agreed - it is instinctive/biological. A cat will attack when it senses
that
> attack is its BEST defensive option.
>
>> I can't see [what the cat does] as pre-emptive self-defense as it is
> responding to an immediate
>> problem.
>> Pre-emptive self-defense is, I would have thought, a human characteristic
> in that
>> it is part of a forward projecting system. Certainly it would involve
> recognition of a
>> future threat which is not usually recognised as a characteristic of most
> other
>> species at anything above a very basic level. This, to me, implies the
use
> of
>> predominantly Intellectual/Social responses.
>
> I would call man's "considered" defensive response an example of intellect
> in service of the biological. Human intelligence evolved as a tool for
> getting food, shelter AND for self defense! That's why human's are better
at
> defending themselves than most other species.
>
>> I did also say that retribution is strongly biased towards the Biological
> not that it
>> was entirely Biological. Retribution is generally expressed in terms of
> punishment
>> and this is more often than not (and certainly in the current
> circumstances which
>> prompted these posts) immediate violence.
>
> I don't see anything Biological whatsoever about it, especially the way
> Horse describes it. I repeat my earlier assertion: RETRIBUTION IS SOCIAL.
>
> JONATHAN
>>> "Successful" preemptive attacks are designed to cause maximum effect but
>>> minimum suffering. Even so, these acts are often technically illegal,
> messy
>>> and even ugly. They are not done to impress newspaper reporters or the
>>> general public, and there is always someone to condemn the act. [snip]
>
> HORSE
>> Interesting phrase 'technically illegal'. Sounds like a euphemism for
> terrorism in
>> this context. I would have thought that any reasonable person would
> condemn
>> actions that are illegal and murderous.
>
> Whether something is legal or illegal depends on man-made laws. I believe
> that it is sometimes morally justifiable to transgress such laws for a
just
> cause. Horse, have you never gone through a red light to let an ambulance
> get through? It's not always so clear cut, but the principal is the same.
>
>> I accept the threat of Bin Laden and Al
>> Qaida but do not accept that the westerm powers have a mandate to kill
>> indiscriminately.
>
> Good, neither do I.
>
>> So called 'surgical' strikes' are anything but surgical unless you
>> consider removal of a leg to cure ingowing toenail the mark of a good
> surgeon.
>
> Bad example Horse. By reputation, surgeons tend to have the same gungho
> reputation as the military. They can't wait to get out the scalpel.
>
>> It's just another of the bullshit militaristic phrases that people like
to
> adopt
>> because it further isolates the user from what is really happening - i.e.
> murder.
>
> Hogwash. I don't condone killing for killing's sake, but what we are
talking
> about certainly isn't murder according to any dictionary I know.
>
>> I'm also very thankful that there are people around to condemn these
acts.
>>
> Actually, so am I. Without them there is no real accountability.
>
> JONATHAN
>>> Horse, what Platt says looks clear enough to me. Germs represent an
> ongoing
>>> threat. A terror attack can be like the sting of a stray bee, and
> there's
>>> nothing much one can do about it. However, this is extremely rare -
> usually
>>> it is a sign that there is a hornets' nest nearby and it is wise to do
>>> something about it.
>>
>
> HORSE
>> In reducing human beings to the level of germs you are negating the
entire
>> concept of the MoQ [snip]. . .
>
> Horse, I was pursuing a metaphor that Pirsig uses, and we have used before
> in this forum. Now you are taking the metaphor too literally.
>
>> Whatever you may believe of
>> another human being they are created by ALL four static levels of Quality
> and
>> have the ability to respond to Dynamic Quality.
>
> Agreed, but when another human being threatens my existance, I feel an
> overwhelming need to defend my own ability to respond to Dynamic Quality.
>
>> In response to the hornet's nest analogy I would agree that removing the
> hornets
>> nest is a good idea, however killing anything with a 10 mile radius of
the
> nest is
>> probably not the best way to go about it. This appears to be what is
being
>> proposed by the 'Alliance' and is certainly about par for the course in
> terms of
>> previous actions - even 'Surgical' ones.
>
> This is an interesting objection. Horse, am I to understand that you now
> agree to the idea of SOME level of military response, but object to the
> degree? Please clarify HOW MUCH response you think is warranted in this
> case.
>
> [re: fundraising in the USA to support IRA terrorism, . . .and also
> Re: US hypocrisy in its support or tolerance for various types of
despotism
> around the world.]
>
> Horse, I agree with you that the USA is far from perfect. In this respect,
> they tend to act like most other nations
> (including yours and mine).
>> You're absolutely right about one thing though Jonathan. The US of A
> doesn't
>> give two hoots - until it comes under attack itself.
> Absolutely! Living where I do, this is now very clear to me.
>
>> Wouldn't you have thought that
>> a reasonable part of pre-emptive self-defense is not to behave in such a
> way as
>> to virtually invite someone to attack you at some point.
> Duh? Did I miss something somewhere? Are you now claiming that the USA
> invited the attacks? Please clarify, because this might be important in
> understanding where you are coming from.
>
> JONATHAN
>>> I'm sure that Bin Laden and his ilk fully believe in the righteousness
> of
>>> their act(s). They regard the USA and what it represents as a dangerous
>>> cancer that threatens mankind as a whole. They set out to preempt this
>>> perceived threat, and thus regard their act as one of prevention. It was
>>> illegal, messy, ugly, . . . and they don't expect you to thank them for
> it.
>>
>> So you've dropped the 'technically' part of illegal when it comes to the
> Bin Laden
>> side of events. But it's still terrorism don't you agree. The view from
> each side is
>> virtually identical - each side sees the other as the spawn of Satan but
> because
>> 'our' side is democratically elected we must be in the right according to
> Platt's
>> reasoning.
>
> I don't see things as so symmetrical. I do not equate deliberate attacks
on
> civilian targets designed to maximise casualties with attacks on military
> targets and infrastructure. However, it's not only a question of right vs.
> wrong, but a question of us vs. them. Democratic elections are a red
> herring.
>
>> Do you remember a song with the title "With God on Our Side"? It's
>> another by that best of all singer-songwriters Bob Dylan. I've reproduced
> it at the
>> end of the post. The sentiment appears to be identical.
>>
>
> I know it well - even thouigh I was but a child in the Vietnam era. I
wonder
> what Uncle Bob would have to say about current events. Did you see the
> recent poem of his that I posted a couple of weeks ago?
>
>>> HORSE
>>> <<
>>> In the case of CRIMINAL acts it is the policeman who is in control.
>>> In the case of an act of WAR it is the soldier.
>>>>>
>>>
> JONATHAN
>>> The difference is often semantic. [snip]
>>> Closer to home (for you), why is the British Army in N. Ireland - surely
> it
>>> is to prevent criminal acts of extremists.
>>
>
> HORSE> And did it work? Has it ever worked? In the last century Ireland
has
> been
>> occupied by British troops on a continuous basis. In the last 30 years
> about
>> 3000+ people have been killed.
>
> Now that I remember. 1969, N. Ireland patrolled by the police - the RUC
with
> their crack unit the "B Specials".
> Now Horse, are you really trying to tell me that it was the British army
who
> caused all the problems?
>
>> In terrorist attacks of one form or another. The
>> British army presence in N. Ireland in terms of prevention has been a
> complete
>> waste of time and life.
>
> I'm glad you are so sure. I don't understand how you can be so optimistic
> that things would have magically fixed themselves in 1969 if only Britain
> had kept its army out of Ulster. Somehow, I'm not so sure.
>
>> A state of war can only legally, technically and rationally exist
>> between identifiable states. This is not a semantic ploy but a statement
> of
>> definition.
>>
> I don't think that is a very useful contribution, but if Horse insists, I
> suppose I'll have to learn to talk about the American Civil Disturbances,
> the Spanish Interparty Clashes, the Russian Postrevolutionary
Conflagration,
> etc. I wonder how many soldiers died without even knowing that it wasn't a
> proper war and that
> they weren't real soldiers.
>
>>> Whoever committed the atrocious act has committed a CRIMINAL offence.
> Horse, maybe no-one ever told you, but criminal acts can also be acts of
> war. Didn't you ever hear of war crimes?
>
> JONATHAN
>>> Horse, please explain. How should Israel respond to terrorist activity
>>> originating in the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority?
> Technically
>>> it is not a state - so you say we should send in the police, but whose
>>> police?
>>> On the other hand, it is a state in all but name (just like the PLO in
>>> Jordan and later in Lebanon), so we may as well use the Israeli army.
>>
>> Is it recognised by the state of Israel as a bona fide state? I think
not.
> Again, how
>> much good has the Israeli Army done. If anything it has made the
situation
> worse
>> when you consider the imbalance in terms of response to action.
>
> I absolutely disagree. The Palestinians have a long history of violently
> targetting Jewish civilians, that long predates the existance of any
Israeli
> army. I have little doubt that without the protection of the Israeli army,
> Jews would not be able to live in Israel. As regards the "imbalance" I
don't
> see it. The VAST MAJORITY of Palestinian dead were combatants involved in
> violent activities (it is all documented) - the fact that the Israeli Army
> is better equipped and better at defending itself is nothing to apologise
> for.
>
>> Negotiation and dialogue are the only things that will solve this problem
> as in N.
>> Ireland - unless you accept genocide as an answer.
>
> I am a great believer in ongoing dialogue, but negotiation on its own
> appears to be futile.
> Horse, if you are seriously proposing that the Israeli Army should stay in
> barracks while this goes on, I humbly suggest that you come over here and
> demonstrate your confidence in such a policy. I can probably rent you a
flat
> quite cheap in the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo.
>
>>>
>>> Another question Horse: This is "not the right way to go" in just this
> case,
>>> or in general? Please explain when a military build-up is justified.
>>
>> In the case of war obviously!!! And not some trumped up excuse to justify
> mass
>> killing. When Hitler attacked Poland, this was the UK's excuse to declare
> War.
>> When Japan attacked the US the US declared War. The use of one nations
>> military resources against another nation is an act of war. The UN would
> be
>> effective as an international police force when it has the backing of
it's
> member
>> nations (effectively the entire world) and acts in response to breaches
of
>> international law - Eg. terrorist attacks.
>>
>
> Thanks Horse, you have now made it abundantly clear. The NATO intervention
> in Kosovo was illegitimate, and Britain and France were right to stay out
of
> the Spanish civil war. As for the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan,
> you say that this is a UN matter. I suppose that means we have to now
blame
> the UN for the deaths of 6000 civilians in New York, and demand that the
UN
> do something drastic to prevent it happening again.
>
>> Jonathan I will say it again. I am not a pacifist nor am I advocating
> pacifism
>> except where it is appropriate. I respect those that are pacifists, such
> as Gandhi,
>> because they must have enormous courage to do what they do when facing
>> violence and possible death.
>> My argument is that, in the long run, a militaristic approach to the
> problem of
>> terrorism will fail. It always has and it always will precisely BECAUSE
> you are not
>> fighting a state but a set of ideals and beliefs. These are
> Social/Intellectual
>> values. A Social/Biological response in the form of militarism will not
> work and
>> under the MoQ is immoral. The acceptance of the analogy with germs is
>> extremely damaging as it evokes the wrong response.
>
> Horse, I see this playing with labels as a complete perversion of the
levels
> idea. It wasn't social/intellectual values that collapsed two giant
> skyscrapers and killed 6000 people. Terrorism must be confronted on ALL
> levels, and that must include the use of appropriate military force. You
> know something Horse, when you and your own family are facing your own
> terrorist threat close to home, remind me to ask you again . . .
>
> HORSE
>>> Killing Hitler after the onset of war have been a justifiable act of
> war.
>>> What made the response of the allies morally correct is that we acted in
>>> self defense against the Axis powers.
>>>>>
>
> JONATHAN
>>> Hogwash. Britain declared war before it was ever attacked!
>
> HORSE
>> Read your history Jonathan. The Treaty of Versailles was dead in the
water
> the
>> day it was agreed. Furthermore it was a major part of the cause of WW2
> because
>> it allowed Britain and France to destroy the German economy and act in an
>> altogether immoral way. Britain and France and their armies would not
have
> been
>> part of the solution becasue they were part of the cause.
>
> I agree about Versailles, but you missed my point entirely. You have no
> evidence whatsoever that Germany would ever have attacked Britain had
> Britain not declared war on Germany.
>
>>
>>> PLATT
>>>> So, I take it the rule we must follow says we can "arrest" terrorists
> only after
>>>> they act . . . Such a pacifist approach is hopeless naive.
>>>
>
>>> HORSE
>>> <<
>>> Well the normal course of events is that if a person commits a criminal
> act
>>> he is then sought, caught and arrested. He is entitled to a fair trial
> [snip]
>
> JONATHAN
>>> Horse, you ignore the issue of the ongoing threat. If lives are at
> stake,
>>> you have act.
>>> It is often illegal, messy, ugly . . . and don't expect anyone you to
> thank
>>> you for it.
>>> Here's your scenario Horse:
>>> You are an armed policeman and you see someone on the bridge over the
>>> motorway holding a rock.
>
> HORSE
>> I'm glad you have set the scene in terms of a police action rather than a
>> militaristic response.
>> The response is not to kill the person on the bridge - this would clearly
> be
>> ridiculous.
>> I am not aware of anything like this happening in the UK where, although
> most
>> policemen and women are not armed as a matter of course there are a
> significant
>> number of armed response units and an armed response unit acting in this
> way
>> would be prosecuted and probably dismissed unless they could reasonably
> show
>> that they thought the person was armed with more than a rock.
>
> Actually Horse, there was a case during the 1980s, where striking miners
> dropped a lump of concrete and killed a lorry driver. Do you seriously
> suggest that the British courts would have condemned a policeman for
> preventing this act?
>
>> Perhaps in Israel
>> or the US the police are trigger happy enough to consider this sort of
> killing
>> acceptable.
>
> No, it is pretty much the same as in the UK. A policeman or soldier who
> kills a civilian under any circumstances can expect to face an
investigation
> and a possible trial.
>
>> What if the person with the rock is a young child - do you kill it? A
> mentally ill
>> person? Why do you automatically assume that killing is the correct
> response?
>
> Even children and the metally ill (ESPECIALLY the mentally ill) can be
> dangerous. I do not assume that killing is necessarily the correct
response,
> but I see that you assume that killing is NEVER the correct response. I
> maintain that there are sometime circumstances where there is no real
> alternative.
>
>> To continue your scenario here in terms of the militaristic response to
> Bin Laden
>> the response would be to send in attack aircraft and helicopters, use a
> bunch of
>> missiles and destroy the rock thrower and the bridge - unfortunately the
> collateral
>> damage from this precise and surgical strike also involved the
destruction
> of a
>> large section of the motorway and the deaths of a couple of hundred
> motorists.
>> Ah well! You win some you lose some - but at least we got the bastard on
> the
>> bridge.
>
> So that's how you see it. Well enjoy the mental masturbation Horse. I'm
hope
> you never have to face any difficult choices like the examples that have
> come up. I find it hard to believe that you'll just sit back and leave it
to
> Uncle Bob and to God.
>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE
>>
>> Bob Dylan
> [snip
>> So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as Hell
>> The confusion I'm feelin' ain't no tongue can tell
>> The words fill my head and fall to the floor
>> If God's on our side
>> He'll stop the next war.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> 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
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 - 16:01:34 BST