From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 14:10:19 GMT
Hi Sam, Wim, all:
> Surely the answer is the conflict between the levels that Pirsig sees as
> the great drama of the twentieth century. That is, the establishment of
> social level patterns (eg human rights legislation, democracy, free trade)
> which preserves the potential of individual choices to pursue higher level
> Quality and thereby generate higher level social Quality in their wake.
Yes, but isn't this pretty much what has transpired in a nation which (as
George Washington indicated) looks to religious principles for moral
guidance? The U.S. has accomplished the social level patterns you mention
without reference to the MOQ as the basis for morality. So who needs it?
That's why I asked, "What is the proper source of morality for a nation?"
recognizing that in the U.S. religion (despite its shortcomings) has
proven to have value by Pirsig's own standards -- freedom of speech, trial
by jury, etc.
> So what we need is
> to foster the framework which enhances the 'room for choice' at the
> individual level, whilst safeguarding that framework against any
> developments which would undermine that maximisation of choice.
I agree. This is the whole thrust behind conservative economist and Nobel
Prize winner Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" which I'm sure you're
familiar with.
> (I think it
> was Popper who said that the only thing that cannot be tolerated is
> intolerance, ie to preserve a generally tolerant system, you have to be
> intolerant of those who would destroy it. Something the Dutch are working
> through at the moment - maybe Wim could comment on that.)
Yes. This Catch 22 of liberalism is something I hope Wim will comment on.
> I'm not sure that RMP would be opposed to 'do your own thing' though. I
> think he would want to ensure that there was a 'threshold' of maturity or
> education before the free choices were accepted, but if an adult in full
> possession of their faculties and the facts of the matter chooses to pursue
> a course of action which society disapproves of, but which doesn't directly
> harm others (eg smoking marijuana), then I think this is a fundamental
> right and achievement which needs to be safeguarded. It was the guiding
> spirit behind the US constitution, so far as I understand it, and the ways
> in which it is being undercut in recent years is very worrying. So it seems
> to me anyhow.
Yes, this fits nicely with my libertarian impulse which I believe is
shared by Pirsig. After all, let's not forgot that the "only perceived
good (of DQ) is freedom."Also notice that the framers of the US
Constitution, who installed a number of the fundamental rights and
safeguards we agree are necessary, looked to religion for moral guidance
and, yes, inspiration.
Best,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 21 2004 - 14:08:31 GMT