From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 20 2002 - 21:01:53 BST
MOQers:
It seems pretty clear that making moral judgements is at the heart of the
MOQ. His framework of levels goes far beyond the conventional sense of the
word "morality". It goes so far beyond that Conventional morality becomes
just one of five sets of conflicting moral codes.
"What the evolutionary structure of the MOQ shows is that there is not just
one moral system. There are many. In the MOQ there's the morality called the
'laws of nature',... the law of the jungle, the law, and there is an
intellectual morality... Each of thees sets of moral codes is no more
related to the other than novels are to flip-flops. What is today
conventionally called 'morality' cover only one of these set of moral codes,
the social-biological code." (pages 158-9)
Pirsig claims that this framework works to explain the morality of just
about anything in the world.
"It was tempting to take all the moral conflicts of the world and, one by
one, see how they fit this kind of analysis, but Phaedrus realized that if
he started to get into that he would never finish. Wherever he looked,
whatever examples came to mind, he always seemed to be able to lay them out
within this framework, and the nature of the conflicts usually seemed to be
clearer when he did so." (page 161)
This system of analysis is not a dogma or fixed truth, yet it can provide an
endless supply of moral anwers, even ones about where dogmas and fixed
truths fit in the larger moral picture.
"Morality is not a simple set of rules. Its a very complex struggle of
conflicting patterns of value. This conflict is the residue of evolution. As
new patterns evolve they come into conflict with the old ones. Each stage of
evolution creates in its wake a wash of problems. Its out of this struggle
between conflicting static patterns that the concepts of good and evil
arise. ... The structuring of morality into evolutionary levels suddenly
gives shape to all kinds of blurred and confused moral ideas that are
flotating around in our present cultural heritage." (page 163)
In contemporary conventional wisdom, the political and religious
Conservatives seem to hold the moral high ground against liberal and
intellectual "elites", but the MOQ's framework shows quite the opposite is
true.
"Like the stuff Rigel was throwing at him this morning, the old Victorian
morality. That was entirely within that one code - the social code. Phaedrus
thought that code was good enough as far as it went, but it really didn't go
anywhere. It didn't know its origins and it didn't know it own destinations,
and not knowing them it had to be exactly what it was; hopelessly static,
hopelessly stupid, a form of evil in itself. Evil. If he'd called it that
150 years ago he might have gotten himself into some real trouble. .. But
today its hardly a risk. Its more of a cheap shot. Everybody thinks those
old Victorian moral codes are stupid and evil, or old-fashoned at least,
except maybe a few religious fundamentalists and ultra-right-wingers and
ignorant uneducated people like that. That's why Rigel's sermon seemed so
peculiar. Usually people like Rigel do their sermonizing in favor of
whatever they know is popular. That say they're safe. Didn't he know all
that stuff went out years ago? Where was he during the revolution of the
60s? Where had he been during this whole century? That's what this whole
century's about, this struggle between intellectual and social patterns.
That's the theme song of the twentieth century." (page 164)
So if we are to discuss what is and is not a proper moral judgement, we have
to begin by tossing out conventional wisdom and replacing it with the MOQ's
evolutionary morality.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:59 GMT