Hello everyone
David Buchanan wrote:
>
> 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.)
Hi David
I cannot see why anyone would spend time in this forum, period. Quite
honestly, I don't understand why I do so and so it would be very
presumptuous of me to allow I understand why anyone else does. I delight
in disagreements for they allow me an opportunity for differing points
of view. No matter how many times I have to start over I always draw
something new and Dynamic and unlooked for.
>
> 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.
David, Pirsig's MOQ is deceptively simple. If we use time as a measure
of evolution, then organic patterns of value are far older and more
evolved than biological patterns, biological patterns far older and more
evolved than social, and social patterns older and more evolved than
intellect. Pirsig alluded to this when he called Lila a "judge".
However, it seems that time is viewed as an intellectual pattern of
value in Pirsig's MOQ and evolution is viewed as Dynamic ratchet leaps
in which time, as we classically understand it, has no value. If all we
remember is yesterday, we may assume there was a day before yesterday
but we will never know for certain one way or another.
>
> 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.)
David, it seems you begin by saying we do not have to justify our moral
actions. I sense your focus on static quality patterns of value as a
moral compass and to extent that we ignore Dynamic Quality, I agree with
you. Dynamic Quality is not a level and 'it' cannot be defined. It seems
to me in choosing between fidelity and infidelity all four levels must
be taken into consideration plus a shifting, undefined Dynamic aspect of
experienced value within static reality... Dynamic/static context, so to
speak.
>
> 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.
David, I thank you for your most informative post. There are many great
posts which I would like to respond to, but, due to circumstances beyond
my control, I am unable to.
>
> 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?
David, I did go back and reread your post but I really have nothing
constructive to offer. I do not believe Pirsig's MOQ subscribes to your
notion of different kinds of morality, however. Quality and morality are
identical. 'It' is 'stuff' of which what we perceive as differing
patterns of value are of. I also disagree we will ever understand nature
of reality or nature of self. We cannot say what "kind" of value resides
in value-centered Universe without slipping into relativism.
Dan
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