Thank you David for such a clear assertation of an issue in a while. Now I
can explain my viewpoint (which I believe supports/is supported by the posts
of David Thomas and Jonathan).
In a message dated 11/30/99 9:30:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org writes:
> [David Buchanan] As I understand it, the MOQ IS a moral
> compass. It describes the structure and process of the universe as a
> moral one. It can help us decide moral/ethical issues as long as we
> realize those issues are small a small fraction of one static level. I
> think this is part of the reason some folks have confessed confusion.
> Pirsig's use of the word "morality" should not be confused with social
> conventions. The discussions of moral relativity can be cleared up using
> the MOQ, but Pirsig's ideas about value, morality and Quality go way
> past that. The MOQ is simply a much larger thing that "ethics",
> althought such issues are certainly included in the larger picture.
This is true, but just not the compass part. In my opinion, a compass WOULD
tell us where to go. But our obvious difficulty in tackling individual moral
problems shows that is that OUR OWN moral compasses tell us different things.
We all have our own solutions to these problems, but so often they
contradict the moral solutions of others.
You say that the MOQ 'describes the structure and process', and the 'MOQ is
simply a much larger thing...issues included in the larger picture.' That's
not a compass.
If anything, LILA represents the MAP of morality. It has allowed us the tools
to SEE the structure and the larger picture. It gave us the tools that allow
us to create a compass, but the REAL compass was NOT explicitly given to us.
The MOQ gave us a vocabulary and a context. BTW Jonathan said the MAP thing
first. The second half of David Thomas's 11/30 post says about the same
thing about the so called 'compass' (but read the whole post!)
The moral compass is you. The way we can agree is by sharing our social and
intellectual experience (values) that make us think that way and analysing
the best values (I like that Wm James quote about the test of the truth is
what is good).
>
> > PLATT WROTE
> > Of course, nearly all the posts on this site touch on these
> > questions to one degree or another. But few that I recall tackle a
> > moral issue head on and use the MOQ to solve it. In fact, the only
> > one I can remember was posted by Bo a long time ago on the
> > subject of eugenics, although there may be others I've missed.
> > (There was a long debate about the wisdom of dropping the atom
> > bomb to end WWII, but nothing resolved in MOQ terms.)
> >
> [David Buchanan] Oh, Platt. I'm so hurt. You've forgotten many
> cases where I've used the MOQ to unravel the morality of a situation. I
> had developed answers the bombing of Japan, the problem with Fascism,
> the President's impeachment and even the reasons why movies are social
> and therefore less moral than books. Maybe the problem in NOT with
> understanding how or why the MOQ works as moral compass, so much as a
> distaste for its conclusions. Maybe you get it, but you don't like it.
> Such a radically new vision of reality is expected to shake things up.
> Truth is, conventional morality doesn't rank all that highly in the MOQ.
> Only dirt and flesh is below it.
Again David, the compass is you. You didn't convince that many people with
your posts.
Most people just stopped arguing and went on to something else.
*** There was a lot here on "betterness", but I agree with you on that idea
***
> [David Buchanan] Roger, I resent your assertion that I
> "conveniently dismissed everything" you said with mere labels. I worked
> very, very hard to dismiss everything you said. There was nothing easy
> about it. Ba Dump Bump. :) But seriously, your response to this "moral
> compass" issue illustrates the problem with you position. It renders the
> MOQ mute and obsolete. How can you think that Pirsig's "inquiry into
> morals" comes to the conclusion that we can not solve moral dilemmas?
> How can a description of a completely moral universe leave us in such a
> mysterious moral vaccuum. We could go round and round about the
> nuts-n-bolts and debate fine points for the rest of time, but the fact
> remains that you vision of the MOQ doesn't seem to work as a explanatory
> tool. In spite of your invocations of pragmatism, that solipsitic dog
> don't hunt. Its not that I don't love you anymore. We just disagree.
>
> DMB
Isn't this a further example of two different compasses? Sure there may be
one "best" answer, but the level of our discussions rarely express our values
enough to make those determinations.
Pirsig said we are to find the "other 99%" of the MOQ that he didn't write
about. His books didn't give us a moral compass because Pirisig could only
give us HIS moral compass. He didn't want to do it. That's why he ended
with the passage "Good is a noun." He knew he didn't have THE MORAL COMPASS.
That final quote was him just pointing in the right direction for us to find
OUR moral compass.
xcto.
I wish we could talk about how a society's 'moral compass' is created by
celebrity and the creation of social social cliques (and intellectual social
cliques) within societies, but that is another BIG THING. I believe it ties
into 'the giant' and the roots of our generally successful modern government
system and combines it with how knowledge grows(through an evolutionary
process).
Does this give anyone ideas?
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 - 16:03:15 BST