From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Mar 21 2003 - 18:54:26 GMT
Hi Rick,
I've seen that paragraph, but I'm afraid I can't figure out how it applies.
Without getting back into any specific argument, it just seems to me that
anyone can claim that their desired course is at a higher level than the
established pattern that is in their way.
And I think even if it could be determined that something was "more
dynamic", it still would be immoral if it involved breaking established
patterns. The patterns are moral, each one of them, and they shouldn't be
broken. Moral things are not necessarily what is best for us, or most fair
or most enlightened. They are just most. (The root of moral, which of
course means simply the mores, customs and traditions, is "mos" - which
looks enough like "most" to me to make me think...If more people do it that
way, that's what is moral)
Many patterns I think we could agree are "more dynamic" and "higher level"
but disagree about their morality, like eugenics, terrorism, communism,
nationalism, globalism, ludditism, technolgism, capitalism, Islamicism. My
bet is that Platt and others will simply pull out from that the things they
like and call them Intellectual, while labelling the things they don't like
as biological or social, but I think those are all Intellectual - they are
all "isms" and involve "thinking about" social things and trying to apply
large scale change across society.
I think the intellectual level is supposed to lay on top of the social level
respectfully, it is not opposed to social patterns. Indeed, I think Pirsig
is on the wrong track when he says higher level patterns are fighting lower
level patterns and keeping them in check them. I believe they nurture them
and depend on them. Pirsig says that flying is overcoming gravity, but note
that gravitational patterns are not endangered by birds flying around.
Indeed, without gravity, there'd be no air pressure for birds to fly in,
birds depend on gravity just like falling rocks do (of course, gravity needs
no nurturing, a better example might be photosynthesis and biological
patterns which promote and nurture chemical patterns which otherwise would
happen more rarely). And biological patterns are nurtured by social
patterns - societies help people eat and live longer. Intellectual patterns
should help social patterns, because it would be immoral to break them down.
For an intellectual pattern to weaken a social level pattern is to
encourage immorality.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
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 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 18:55:32 GMT