From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 17:29:07 GMT
Kevin and all citizens:
Kevin asked:
If socialism is "more moral" and "more evolved" then why is it dying
out, according to Pirsig? He seems to suggest that it lacks DQ. How can
it lack DQ and be "more moral" at the same time? Something doesn't quite
jive with that.
DMB says:
Good question. But there is also a good anwer and it does all "jive". It
does all fit together. The answer can be found in the moral codes. These
codes are the key to understanding the MOQ as a moral compass in general and
also your specific question. The first part is easy. Socialism and the other
4th level ideologies are morally superior than the 3rd level ideologies
simply because they are at a higher level of evolution. Here we are only
comparing static patterns and so it is as easy as knowing that 4 is more
than 3. The final moral code introduces DQ into this analysis and says that
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, the more dynamic choice is more moral. In this
case, we can't say third level traditions are more moral even if they happen
to be "inadvertantly" more dynamic, not even if it were intentionally
dynamic. We can't say that because all other things are NOT equal. They are
still at different levels of evolution. And this fifth moral code applies at
all levels. The most dynamic animal that ever lived would still be less
moral than the most static tradition. We can only rightly invoke the final
moral code when we are comparing things at the same level. That's when ALL
OTHER THINGS can be equal. When are choice is between two things at the same
level, then we can say its correct to pick the more dynamic one. So, as I
understand it, the MOQ tells us that the best choice in politics would be a
socialism that does recognize the need for dynamism. It would advocate an
intellectually guided society that does not make the mistake of locking out
DQ. Make sense? I hope so.
Kevin said:
Maybe Pirsig is making a distinction between the Theories and the
Systems involved? The IDEA of the Left is more moral, but historically
the socialists (and I assume he means the Hard Left not just Social
Democrats like most of western europe) failed to implement actual
Systems that made good on these high ideas without resorting to regimes
devoid of DQ. Is that the point?
DMB says:
No, I don't think Pirsig makes such a distinction. And I'm pretty certain
that Pirsig was talking about Social Democrats, Liberals and other softer
left ideologies. In fact, he mentions FDR and the New Deal, Woodrow Wilson
and other relatively moderate types as examples.
Kevin said:
Or is he saying that in practice, a low-moral idea that allows for DQ
(capitalism) is superior to a high-moral idea that doesn't? Or has
practice nothing to do with it and even in theory this is the case?
DMB says:
No. Again, we can't rightly apply the final moral code, the code of art
across the levels, but only when they are otherwise equal. Otherwise, we
could argue that its moral for the doctor to choose a dynamic virus over a
dull and static patient. The absurdity of such a choice is very clear and
shows why we ought not do this cross-level comparisons when applying the
code of art. See?
Thanks for your time,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Sat Jan 18 2003 - 17:30:22 GMT