From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Mar 30 2005 - 16:20:55 BST
Erin:
> Well I read both chapters, I don't see a clear answer yet.
It's a good thing to reread Pirsig from time to time if for no other
reason that one's perspective broadens as we grow with each new
experience.
> Now I believe the "answer" you think is seeing the problem with the
> "postmodern" stance of sexual promiscuity is neither moral nor immoral it
> is amoral human behavior. I can see the problems of paralysis you hint at
> in not judging soemthing as moral or immoral BUT I have trouble reconciling
> it with the following statement which also makes sense
>
> " The problem is you can't say really say whether a specific change is
> evolutionary at the time it occurs. It is only with a century or so of
> hindsight that it appears evolutionary"
Yes. There's a remote chance that amoral SOM will turn out to be a forward
step in evolution. But Pirsig argues that the chance is slim even taking
into account all the technological advances SOM-based science has made
possible. SOM dominance is more likely to lead to disaster because it
doesn't understand much less attempt to control "the ocean of biological
quality, nor does SOM understand that the forces driving evolution are
moral, not physical.
> Also some judgements are hard to make "is a celibate Dalai Lama more moral
> than a married Dalai Lama". If celibacy is moral than who here isn't
> immoral? I think categories of "moral" and "immoral" can be detrimental
> to understanding some times but I don't believe anything goes. I do
> believe that some things are more moral than others---but in terms of
> sex/rock-n-roll a continuum of morality seems more helpful that putting
> people into two categories.
That's precisely the issue. Where on the continuum do you say "This is
wrong"? I keep thinking about those intercepted notes from second graders
that blew you mind. To me they were a symptom of a degenerating society,
like the popularity of such TV shows as "Sex and the City" and "Desperate
Housewives," not to mention the sexual content of rock videos on MTV. When
promiscuous sex is celebrated in the public square, the moral and
spiritual values of the family, which hold a society together, are in
decline.
> Also when I think about Dalai Lama's celibacy I get a sense of control over
> the biological level and when I thnink of Victorian I think of of Freud's
> unhealthy sexually repressed patients.
Freud's ideas have been largely rejected by modern psychology.
> I think there is a difference
> between control over the biological level and unhealthy repression of
> it.......not sure of the exact difference....one seems to encourage control
> and the other is an unnecessary guilt trip which probably leads to more
> promiscuity.
I'm not sure either, but I doubt your conclusion.
> C'mon tell somebody not do to something of course they are
> going to want it even more. Why not point to healthier behavior and make
> them want that.
Responsible parents and teachers try to do just that, but social and peer
pressures are hard to overcome. I'd like to dust off that old Victorian
adage, "Spare the rod and spoil the child" with the purpose, as Pirsig
wrote, "...to see what they (the Victorians) were trying to accomplish and
what they actually did accomplish toward building a stronger society."
(Lila, 24)
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 : Wed Mar 30 2005 - 16:22:05 BST