Hi, Ken and MoQers.
Clark wrote:
>
> drose and the squad,
> We do have extreme difficulty in talking about the MoQ without bringing
> sentience into it, don't we?
For obvious reasons. <G>
> The difficulty I have is that it seems to me that Pirsig alters the
> thrust of the MoQ when he gets to humanity (or sentience). Up until the
> point where humanity evolves the MoQ is solidly based on the physical
> universe. Up to that point all of evolution is compatible and nothing is
> incompatible with the physical basis of the universe. Morality is universal
> morality. When sentience develops then the focus of evolution switches to humanity.
> From that point on the basis of the MoQ becomes humanity.
I think it would be better said that the intellectual level becomes the
focus of Pirsig.
Once he has laid the groundwork for the metaphysics he then focuses once
again on the themes he first explored in Zen.
> This results in the basis of morality being sentience which results
> in a different MoQ for each sentient being. This is where he switches
> to the idea that there is no single truth but a different
> truth for each sentient individual.
> This human focus on morality
> leads into the heirarchy of the levels and dictates an
> increasing level of morality for each of the four levels. At this point we
> begin to judge morality from a strictly human standpoint. Morality is no
> longer based on the physical universe, only on the concerns of humanity.
I see this as a shift to a discussion of the moral code I-PoV over
S-PoV. Okay, here is where we can dovetail into the rest of the thread.
If you accept the MoQ as Pirsig presents it, then the reason that
sentience becomes the focus is that once sentience is attained, it has
the potential to substantially alter the course of evolution for itself
and the other levels.
> I contend that this is not a valid way of looking at morality. I believe
> that human morality should remain a single truth based on the workings of
> the physical universe and that the four levels should remain compatible
> with physical morality. If we adopt this interpretation then the four
> levels would not represent increasing levels of morality. Instead they
> would represent an equal mix of moral possibilities with no level being
> considered an overriding level of morality. In this way moral judgements
> would still be based on physical morality and what is good for the universe
> and the biosphere would be based on a single physical truth instead of the
> "many truths" set forth in Lila.
> Does this make any sense or have I just confused you further. Ken
You've made perfect sense. I know pretty much exactly where you and I
differ, but I'm not sure how we can bridge the gap. I guess as I learn
more I may end up seeing this issue as you do.
Until then, I look forward to your posts as always. They are always
thought provoking. Here's to learning more!
Cheers!
drose
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