Hi 3WD:
Thanks for your response to my inquiry. It does indeed seem clear, as
you say, that Pirsig considers the social level strictly a human
phenomenon. Since the MOQ hierarchy is his baby, to deny what he
says about it seems futile. A definition of the social level other than that
given by Pirsig may be OK in another metaphysics, but it wouldn't be
the MOQ.
But you went on to say:
> If you combine this with his assertion that each higher level is closer to
> Dynamic Quality, is more evolved, is better, a higher level of good, it
> appears to me that what you have is a restatement of standard
> Judeo-Christian beliefs. Human values on the top two (image of God) levels,
> elevated and separated, and better than, all other (created by God) values.
> This even though under other provisions of the MOQ all patterns of value
> over time supposedly evolve or progress toward ever higher levels, greater
> good. If the top two levels are exclusively reserved for human values this
> closes the metaphysical door on any others beings in the universe ever
> bridging the gap to social or intellectual levels. Which would appear to
> directly contradict his assertion that 'everything' is or tries to better
> itself over time.
>
> If this is so, it is a type of short sighted, human arrogance that I
> find moral repugnant.
First, I'm not sure where Pirsig says 'everything' tries to better itself over
time. It seems to me that he says some things do and some things try
to retard betterment. Can you cite a reference or two?
Second, I wonder if you could elaborate further on your moral
repugnance at humans who think of themselves as being at the top of
the evolutionary heap. I can see why you may have some problems
with religion. I do, too. But is it wrong, for example, for humans to
consider themselves better than a society of rats carrying the bubonic
plague? Would you consider it morally repugnant if a man preferred
the well-being of his wife and family over a swarm of locusts or a cadre
of secret police? Is it your view we should return to the age of hunters
and gatherers? Do you agree with Wilber's moral view that "the greater
the depth, the greater the value?" As for aliens, if they did manage to
get here from a galaxy far away, wouldn't that be prima facie evidence
that they were at a higher intellectual level than humans and perhaps
more responsive to DQ?
I know. Far too many questions. What I'm driving at is a better
understanding of your moral philosophy. It seems to be a kind of
radical egalitarianism, but I'm probably wrong. It's been known to
happen. (-: Any further light you'd care to shed would be appreciated.
Platt
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 - 16:02:15 BST