From: Chuck Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 18:53:07 BST
Hello:
The first portion, the "all MEN are created equal" part, Pirsig is refering
to individuals. In the second, he is comparing cultures by which level they
look to as a whole, or generally speaking - biological, social or
intellectual - for moral guidelines.
I think what appeals to Pirsig about all men being created equal is that
each individual has freedom of choice as far as beliefs go; each individual
is a blank slate at birth. To me, The second quote supports the first. A
culture may be judged by which individual or individuals said culture holds
up as the ideal, as what that culture as whole thinks of as Quality at the
moment.
Sad commentary on the evangelistic, line-in-the-sand, war-machine the U.S.
sees in the mirror these mornings. It gets me down.
Best,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
@venus.co. [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
On Behalf Of Platt Holden
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:39 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: MD Did Pirsig flip-flop on equality?
Hi All,
There appears to be a contradiction or at least a question regarding
Pirsig's views on "social equality." At first, he praises the concept:
"The idea that "all men are created equal" is a gift to the world from the
American Indian. Europeans who settled here only transmitted it as a
doctrine that they sometimes followed and sometimes did not. The real
source was someone for whom social equality was no mere doctrine, who had
equality built into his bones. To him it was inconceivable that the world
could be any other way. For him there was no other way of life. That's
what Ten Bears was trying to tell them.
Phaedrus thought the Indians haven't yet lost this one. They haven't yet
won it either, he realized; the fight isn't over. It's still the central
internal conflict in America today. It's a fault line, a discontinuity
that runs through the center of the American cultural personality. It's
dominated American history from the beginning and continues to be a source
of both national strength and weakness today." (Lila, 3)
But later, he says the following:
Cultures are not the source of all morals, only a limited set of morals.
Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their contribution
to the evolution of life. A culture that supports the dominance of social
values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one
that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual
values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not. It
is immoral to speak against a people because of the color of their skin,
or any other genetic characteristic because these are not changeable and
don't matter anyway. But it is not immoral to speak against a person
because of his cultural characteristics if those cultural characteristics
are-immoral. These are changeable and they do matter. (Lila, 24)
On the one hand, he says social equality is a good thing. On the other, he
says it's not a good thing to think that all societies are equal.
Is this a flip-flop? If not, what's the difference?
Thanks,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 19:59:45 BST