Greetings,
I can't tell you how pleasing it is to read the recent contributions on this thread. As I said, this
issue constituted part of my first ever posting to the squad about 18 months ago and at that time I
was roundly condemned by almost everyone. It has also been an ongoing theme - indeed, the central
focus - within all my contributions since and, although some progress has been made, there are still
fundamental and vital questions to be addressed.
Morality has to be looked at from a perspective. In other words, when we say 'good' we have to ask,
'good for what?' Do we mean good for the inorganic level, good for the social level, good for human
beings. . . etc, etc? There is no use in simply saying that all is good, or that a particular action
is good, unless we define the term and approach it from a perspective. This leads me on to my recent
question about the function of the term 'good' in the MoQ. From an inter-level perspective it is
easy to understand its function, if not its application, but once we ask whether there is a
'universal good' the function becomes much less clear. Indeed, I wonder whether the idea of a
universal good is tenable at all, which is, I suspect, an outright heresy to the MoQ. Walter
contends that this problem is restricted to the intellectual level and, while I wholeheartedly agree
with his insistence on time being entered into an evolutionary ethical perspective, I do think that
this problem actually goes much deeper. We are discussing nothing less than the whole concept of
everything being quality, assuming we use the term in anything more than the most banal sense where
we could simply restate it as everything is X.
I've just read Ken's latest offering and agree with the thrust. The 'truths' issue is well put, but,
in the light of the above, I wonder what this progress towards good actually means? Forgive me, but
I don't understand what this is saying:
KEN:
"Original human nature" is a product of the "good" of the universe. The
universe is "good" because it is the result of Quality operating on the
conditions with which it was presented. The universe is "good" by
definition because we accept "Quality" as being good. We are the product of
universal Quality therefore our human progress is based on a thrust toward
"good" and "value. Our "Many Truths" will gradually become fewer as our
level of understanding increases and we begin to move toward a common
understanding.
Let me try. Quality resulted in the universe which is good because it is Quality and Quality is
good. We are a product of Quality, therefore we are thrust (ing?) towards Quality because Quality is
synonymous with good and value.
I understand that the idea that Quality is presupposed and not open to verification so will not
argue that one. I don't understand why that which is a product of Quality seems bound to strive
towards Quality. How (and why) does something strive towards itself? That seems to me to be rather
odd, if not downright impossible.
If all is Quality, then nothing moved away from Quality and so nothing has to be thrust back towards
it and so we come back to the initial question of what we mean by good.
Finally, the paragraph Ken reproduces from pg99 of Lila (Chpt8) is beautifully put, but totally
unoriginal and no more than any decent scientist will have told us for the last 100 years. For
Pirsig to place this sort of thing in opposition to empiricism is quite insulting and displays a
profound misunderstanding of modern science. There is nothing new here and the only way there could
possibly be something new is if Pirsig has managed to establish that good is fundamental to
everything. That is the 'Holy Grail' of this forum, but the unanswered questions posed recently, in
my opinion, are a major obstacle to finding it.
Great work folks, I've got a lot more to say on this but have a brand new Triumph 1200 to ride and
am itching to get on it, so I will leave the rest for later.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST