Hi everyone
I'm new to this list and I've been very impressed byt the quality of posts and the website. I hope you won't mind if soem of my views are a bit critical of the MOQ. Basically I think it's a good theory but there are a few points that I think need clarification.
> In a message dated 10/31/98 11:36:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> diana@hongkong.com writes:
> ch 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
> ->- conventional morals -- proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery,
> >theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the
> >supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order -- democracy,
> >trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's
> >a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call
> >it a 'code of Art' or something like that, but art is usually thought of
> >as such a frill that that title undercuts it importance. The morality of
> >.the brujo in Zuni -- that was Dynamic morality."
> ...
> >"We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason. We can now
> >deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral arguments with
> >greater precision than before."
>
> >These are bold claims indeed, but are they justified?
To answer your question, no I don't think they are justified.The first four codes could at a stretch, be claimed to be reasonable, ie based on reason (though I agree with comments others have made about how it seems relativistic and there are too many factors to consider). However the last one Dynamic vs Static, is quite obviously not reasonable. The whole point about Dynamic Q is that you can't reason it out.
The Dynamic-static code is Pirsig's wild card which gets him out of tricky situations like when do you decide when the social level should override the biological level and when do you decide that the social level is destroyig the biological level and hence immoral (ie it is okay for the higher levels to overcome the lower ones as long as they don't destroy them). Given that there are infinite no of outcomes of any situation, how can you decide which is best? Of course it's easy enough with hindsight but at the time, in the event, your only recourse is to use Dynamic Quality to decide. Not that I'm saying that's necessary a bad thing, but it's not a reasonable thing so Pirsig's claim is not justtified.
Hope I haven't offended anyone
rds
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
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