Hi John
John:
I have been following the discussion on the moral shortcomings of the MOQ,
which culminated in your suggestion of the need to develop a Q-ethics. I
totally agree with Roger that the MOQ as it stands is morally bereft.
Marco:
Well, not that I disagree completely, but, tell me, is there something so decisively better than the MOQ? Ethics? Pirsig wrote an inquiry into morals, and for what I can remember there is a subtle difference between morals and ethics. Correct me if I'm wrong, morality is about general criteria, while ethics is about everyday choices and behavior. Ethics (what we should do) is supported by an underlying morality (what is good).
We have dozens of moral constructs available. Christian religion is another one I've heard of :-) , in its catholic version (for evident reasons). Well, even if the moral pricipia of Christianism are more or less clear (faith, hope & charity; the ten commandments, and so on) there are dozens of ethical interpretations inspired by those principia; often in conflict; sometimes, aberrant. Ku Klux Klan and Mother Theresa, the Spanish conquerors and John Paul II... how many different things in the name of the same morality! The same goes for marxism and capitalism and, sadly, for islam.
Ethics can find a more or less rational or instictive support in all moral constructs. Even in more than one at the same time. The MOQ, as moral construct, is not different to that extent. As morality, the MOQ provides few clear principia: Quality is Reality; there a Dynamic and a static aspect in nature; the static aspect is knowable and can be organized in four distinct levels; there's a moral hierarchy of the four levels. Then, dozens of discussions if a single fact, event, choice is to be considered of a certain level, or a mix. Seeing the impossibility to find an agreement on the basis of the MOQ as a failure is IMO a mistake. I'd fear a forum in which everyone is in agreement.
And actually, for example, I don't agree with you in some of your considerations. Especially the "fascism" thing I find absurd, if I understand your point. My reading of the giant section leads me completely elsewhere: Pirsig seems to tell the reader "beware the Giant!" and this is not fascism, is it?
In the end, two are the main reasons I like the MOQ for: it's simple; it is antithetical to any dogmatic vision. Then, it is well possible that the moral principia of Wilber or of whoever else are better than the MOQ. And it is well possible that something else is even better. No morality is perfect. Anyway, you have definitively convinced me to put Wilber on the "to be read" list. Sooner or later.....
bye,
Marco
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 - 16:01:36 BST