Robert Pirsig wrote:
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
things being equal. that choice which is more dynamic, that is, at a
higher level of evolution is more moral."
Dan Glover wrote:
"It seems to me that since Pirsig's MOQ states that Universe is
fundamentally moral and value-centered there is no need for
justification. Must we continually justify our moral actions when all
actions are moral?"
David Lind wrote:
"..some actions are more moral than others."
David B. writes:
The Pirsig quote is pretty central to the MOQ, don't you think? I'd
assumed that everyone understands the idea behind it and that our
discussions proceeded forward from that point. Its pretty disappointing
that there is so much disagreement about something so essential and
fundamental. I thought everyone understood and accepted the basic
outlines of the MOQ and viewed it as a MORAL COMPASS. To be frank, I
don't see why anyone would spend time in this forum if they don't even
agree with the main features of the MOQ.
It's kinda like an atheist going to divinity school, isn't it? (NO, I
don't think the MOQ is a religion, its just an analogy. Please don't let
it prevent you from getting the point.)
Biological values are more evolved, and therefore are more moral, than
inorganic values. Social values are more evolved than biological values.
Intellectual values are more evolved than social values, and Dynamic
Quality itself is the force behind that evolution. Each new level
represents an expansion of morality, an expansion of freedom and
complexity. The Pirsig quote puts the four levels and the moral codes
into a neat little nutshell, right? I honestly thought we all agree on
these points.
I'm gonna give Dan a break and suppose that his words were just badly
phrased, especially since he clarified and redeemed himself later in the
same post. I'll even go along with his "all actions are moral" if he
lets me add the phrase, "at some level". All actions are moral at some
level. Hmm. Not too bad. How about; "Everything has quality and value at
some level."?
As Lind simply put it, some actions are more moral than others, right?
To use the MOQ as a moral compass we don't ask how good or bad something
is, we ask "HOW IS IT GOOD?" What kind of value is it? That's the
question. We inquire as to the level of the values involved. Sex is
good, but faithfulness is even better. Given a choice between the two,
fidelity is better. Its social and is more evolved than the physical joy
of sex. (Naturally, we'd like to have both.)
And my post concerning the hierarchy of ideologies was about the
difference between social and intellecutual values, as I'd said
explicity. There was a remarkable similarity, I thought, between the
hierarchy and the top two static levels of the MOQ. The social
psychology showed that ways of thinking and looking at the world
correspond to the level of development in the individual. It even showed
a dramatic shift in the values of people who can begin to identify with
intellectual principles rather than their own society. It was supposed
to show the difference between social and intellectual values. I was
trying to share an exciting idea that I thought would help to clear up
an area many people have described as muddy.
The piss and vinegar I got back as a response wasn't horrible because it
hurt my feelings. It wasn't disappointing because it undermines the
ideas expressed by the authors. It's horrible and disappointing because
there was no real response to it at all. Are we not philosophers? I'm
begging you to re-read that Sunday post now that the heat has died down.
It represents many hours of work. And I can't cash compliments at the
bank any more than the insults. (If I had a buck for every personal
remark, I'd be rich.) But all I want is a discussion. That's why we're
here, right? You can hate me if it turns you on, but please look again
at the ideas in that post. Almost every question posed in response was
already addressed in the original. I guess I could re-create those parts
and pieces for each person, but that just too much work, and its hard
work, and its work I've already done. (Not that I don't enjoy it the
first time around.)
I'm begging you to re-visit the post because, let's face it, saying
fidelity is better than sex is a slam-dunk, no brainer. Its common
sense. You don't need a fancy new metaphysics to be faithful to your
spouse or to keep any other promises. But knowing the difference between
social and intellecual values is the key to understanding much more
subtle kinds of morality. Not only so that we can act in the most moral
ways possible, but also because the whole universe is nothing but
different kinds of morality. I mean its not just a "what should we do"
kind of thing. Its about understanding the nature of reality, the nature
of your self. In the MOQ there is nothing but value. The question is;
What kind of value is it?
DMB
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 - 16:03:14 BST