In a message dated 11/1/98 8:05:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
diana@hongkong.com writes:
>Jonathan wrote
> 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.
>This is very clearly put and resolves the moral conflicts that the MoQ seems
to >present. For example from a rapist's point of view his actions seem moral,
ie >biologically dynamic. However from the victim's point of view the event is
definitely >low biological quality. One says it's dynamic the other says
static, so who's right? >The conflict is resolved, as Jonathan says, at a
higher level. Socially, depending on >the culture and the circumstances, it
may be either the victim or the rapist who is >considered more moral. But
intellectually, which overrides both social and >biological value, the rapist
is always in the wrong. >>
This cant be said any better.
We need to talk more about the interface between the levels. One question,
how much influence does the intellect really have over the levels that are
below it other than social? Does the intellect have any jurisdiction over
biology?
At the end of chap 24 Pirsig talks about this and say that intellect must
support society over biology, biology over inorganic, etc. Can the intellect
battle biology without using society? or will this create a head without a
body? Intellect destroys the low value germs so as not destroy high value
humans, right? Or was it society that did it with the tools of intellect?
hmm.
Here's two questions for those who liked the discussion on the two low social
quality teens. Was the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki an intellectual or social decision? Was it moral?
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