Daniel
You wrote a while back;
> In my opinion, the success of a MOQ based political movement would succeed
or fail based on how well it fit into people's existing values.
DLT
Along this line it recently occurred to me that while we all think we are
delving into the mysteries of the MoQ (and to some degree we are). What we are
also doing (and maybe primarily doing) is sketching the boundaries of our own
preexisting static patterns of value. Your interpretation of the MoQ on the
death penalty will serve to illustrate. The issue has been discussed here a
number of times with most against it,quoting MoQ support chapter and verse.
But we probably haven't honestly asked ourselves the questions; What was your
position prior to reading ZAMM & Lila? Do you really recall? And has your
position substantially changed?
My guess is that the number of changed postions approaches zero. And those
that did were on the fence leaning to the negative and the MoQ pushed them.
Nor do I think just because he developed the MoQ, Pirsig is automatically
immune from letting his own static patterns artfully warp his arguments to
satisfy his preexisting bias.
1 Ideas are too valuable, too good, to kill.
2 Evil people,(sometimes, often, always(pick one) have valuable, good, ideas.
Under Pirsig's interpretation it is morally right and good that intellectual
values dominant other values which in this case translates into; it is wrong
to ever kill an idea, even a potential idea, unless it is a dire threat to the
life of one of the lower levels (i.e. social because of treason). But if ideas
and potential ideas are so valuable; What about the ideas of the victims or
potential victims? Do these get no consideration? If ideas are that valuable,
What should the penalty be for a "killer of ideas"?
Take a "Silence of the Lambs" type scenario where, even in a penal
environment, there is some real probability, if given the opportunity the
killer will kill again. We have enough experience with the
fallibility of humans and human systems to know we cannot guarantee that such
an opportunity will never occur. Even if one rules out escape,
other moral values such a the right not to be "cruelly or inhumanely punished"
,which includes not just survival, but rights such as health care,
access to council, etc., which involves some limited association with others.
(penalworkers, other inmates, visitors, lawyers, health care workers etc.)
what this interpretation of the MoQ says it is ALWAYS of higher moral value to
protected the potential ideas of proven and potential killer. Even if that
position places the current and potential ideas of other individuals and their
lives at risk. And that there NEVER IS, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE a level of risk
that is intolerable.
This view seeks to assures the safety and viablity of one class of "potential
ideas" (the killer's) while overlooking or understating the value, the
safety, and viablity of the other class of "potential ideas" (the victims and
potential victims). This in my opinion is an untenable and morally
indefensible position. This absolutist position is also in direct conflict
with one of primary characteristics of the MoQ which is contigency and the
potential for change.
It is the tendancy to interpret the authority of ideas and the intellect as
absolutely morally right by virtue of its position in the hierarchy that I
find most troubling in relation to developing any MoQ political theory. Do we
not have ample evidence, particularly in the arena of political ideas; That
there are plenty of "Bad", "Wrong",and "Morally Corrupt" political theories?
But what apologists for the absolute supermacy of the Intellect often say; No,
No, the reason that ______ism failed was that the Social or the Biological
values or practices interfered or overruled the Intellectual ideas. If the
Intellectual could have truely dominated, everything would have been peachy.
Never a bad idea, just bad praxis. Never a bad ruler, just bad subjects.
Yet if we turn to science, one of the disciplines which has been highly prized
for its intellectual ways, over and over again we find IPoV which were just
plain wrong. Is it reasonable to expect that the intellect of political
science(?) to be any better?
While I don't fully understand Bo's SOLAQI concept I think he sees the same
problem as I see. If humans, and thus their intellect, are fallable and the
intellect has the moral right to dominant our existence: How does one
protect against truely bad or evil intellectural ideas from becoming dominant?
The potential checks and balances are either:
External to the static levels. (God et al)
Internal to the intellectual level (SOM maybe?)
Some interaction or mediation between levels both up and down.(Not MoQ compliant)
or
Death or near death experiences of the lower levels.(MoQ compliant)
If I had my druthers, I'd just as soon avoid the the last method for as long
as possible.
DLT
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