David L Thomas wrote [among other things]:
> I believe you would agree that [it] is reasonable to say that the MoQ is
> moral or meta-ethical philosophy. So let's ask a moral question.
>
> Is it ethical to write philosophy and publish it in the guise of novels?
>
The use of the word "ethical" in the above question seems to imply the meaning of
adhering to a set of professional standards rather than pursuing questions of
morality. Professional sets of standards are social tools employed by social
institutions for the purpose of protecting those institutions. The use of this
type of ethics to discredit, stifle, or destroy ideas is, according to the MoQ,
immoral because it is a lower set of value patterns attempting to devour a higher
one.
Now, I know that intellectuals and academicians will readily defend professional
standards of intellectual rights and the required ethical practices designed to
protect them, but is this really what is best? Who are such standards really
protecting anyway? And what kind of protection is provided by them? It seems to
me that the protection of such ethical standards is either egocentric or financial
in nature, not intellectual. Mr. Thomas also wrote, "The criteria we would like
it to meet is 'If everybody did this would the world be a better place,'"
referring to the practice of putting philosophy into fictional novels for the
accused purpose of avoiding the need to credit sources. I submit that in fact,
yes the world would be a better place because intellect would be freed from its
foulest oppressor: the social restrictions of intellectuals.
Pirsig seemed to be more interested in reaching people with the benefits of
viewing the world through his value-centered MoQ than he was in achieving academic
recognition and acceptance. He wasn't an ego climber and so I doubt he was an ego
writer.
Anyone who would read Pirsig for the purpose of comparing his work to the work of
other philosophers would do well to attempt to break their own static filters to
experience a little of the chaos of Dyanamic Quality and then read it again.
Pirsig himself doubted the morality of his developing a metaphysics because he
said it was a static pattern attempting to devour a dynamic one. With this, I
would disagree. It seems fairly evident that Pirsig is truly a mystic, but he is
also a teacher. Static methods are the only ones we have to attempt to convey
dynamic messages. Metaphysics can serve the same purpose as poetry. Ideas
conveyed through words can be even more beautiful than art if they capture a
concept elegantly.
I know I seem to digress a bit, but I want to make the point that the writing of
both ZAMM and Lila were extremely moral acts because they stimulate the Dynamic
Quality of the intellect and help some people get a glimpse of Pirsig's mystic
vision.
T.R. Ellis
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 - 16:03:13 BST