From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 16:06:57 BST
Hi Steve:
> I have been thinking of dynamic morality in the sense of the usual usage of
> the word "morality"--not as types of patterns but as a code of conduct.
Dynamic Quality (morality) is neither "types of patterns" nor "a code of
conduct." Like the Tao (below) DQ can't be defined.
> The MOQ distinguishes two categories of morals to help us understand their
> purpose. AsI understand what Pirsig is saying, some of our morality exists
> to control biological patterns, which is the social-biological moral code.
> Some morals exist to free the intellect from society which make up the
> social-intellectual code.
As I understand Pirsig, all the levels are moral codes of conduct or
patterns of behavior. The inorganic code are the laws of physics, the
biological code the laws of nature, the social code the Law, and the
intellectual level the laws of logic and the scientific method. Nowhere do
I find Pirsig mentioning a combination of two levels as a moral code.
> Dynamic morality is a moral code like these (not a static level), but it is
> the code that can't be codified. I see Dynamic morality as what the MOQ
> offers us in place of the static absolute right and wrong that people have
> unsuccessfully tried to uncover for so long. Since static patterns change
> over time, there are no moral absolutes or fixed standards for behavior
> that are universally best for all time. "Best" is a moving target and so
> the morality that we must follow if we hope to achieve it is dynamic.
Pirsig mentions several universal moral absolutes. Remember the
doctor's right to kill germs and the need for intellectuals to support
society's fight against biological forces? Some static patterns don't
change over time, especially those at the lower levels. Some battles
between moral levels never cease. The jungle constantly threatens
civilization. That's what is meant by "the thin blue line." No civilization
can survive without police.
> To live according to dynamic morality is to follow DQ or to follow the Tao.
> "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" (says the Tao Te Ching).
> The morality that can be codified is not the eternal morality. The Tao is
> often translated as "the way." Jesus is also said to be the Way. The great
> spiritual teachers have taught let go of static patterns. Then what?
> Follow dynamic morality. Allow yourself to be lived by DQ, the Tao, God,
> etc.
Agree. But don't forget to look over your shoulder. The jungle may be
gaining on you.
> At any rate, I don't think it would make any sense to think of dynamic
> morality as a static level, but Platt may still be on to something to
> suggest that the experience of art that we have such a hard time
> classifying within the four static levels may be part of a static level
> above the intellectual.
There's a new book out titled "Beauty: The Value of Values" by
Frederick Turner. He argues, "Beauty is at the core of our cognitive
abilities; it is also the core of our moral conscience." Later, "I believe
that the element of the ineffable, the mystical, the intangible in beauty is
the emergence of that divine mind." Sort of like Dynamic Quality don't
you think?
In any case, I'd be content to associate art and beauty as indications
and reflections of DQ rather than an new static level. After all, what
"code" can one follow to assure creation of great art?
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 Mar 30 2003 - 16:07:45 BST