In a message dated 11/1/98 1:05:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, Jonathan
marder@agri.huji.ac.il writes:
>Hi Diana, Squad,
> I am going to state to opinions which I have expressed before:-
>1. Morality is allowing potential (which I identify with DQ) to be
>realized to the maximal and BEST extent.
>
>2. The (moral) conflicts WITHIN a level are resolved at a higher level.
>The decision who should eat first is a SOCIAL decision. Democracy,
>courts and the press use INTELLECTUAL patterns for deciding on SOCIAL
>issues.
>My (jonathans) second point follows some quotes:-
>Diana quoted:-
>From chp 13
>
>"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
>biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
>that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life
[snip]
>The other place in Lila where morality is extensively discussed in
>Chapter 24, where Pirsig talks about morality in terms of the INTERFACE
>between the levels.
>Pirsig talks
>about 5 levels of moral conflict which he gives as:-
>1. Chaos vs. Inorganic patterns
>2. Inorganic vs. Biological
>3. Biological vs. Social
>4. Social vs. Intellectual
>5. static vs. Dynamic
>Pirsig thus differentiates between morality which is INTERlevel, and
>value patterns which are INTRAlevel. Somehow, I (jonathan)don't think he
really
>means this. >>
I think you may need to clarify this. Because I think he may allow it. There
are high value and low value Static Qualities INTRAlevel and INTERlevel it is
the hierarchy. Or am I (xcto) wrong?
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST