From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 14:07:28 BST
Hi
Not entirely fair, there is clearly the possibility
of reaching too far too soon, whereby in an attempt
to improve the intellectual level freedom we may introduce freedoms
that destroy the social levels rise above the biological. Pirsig
mentions this about certain aspects of the 1960s. It is a hard
judgement call that we have to take much care over. The 1960s
clearly had both negative and positive aspects, and was not
sustainable at the time.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society.
> Hi Wim and MarkM,
>
> I'm not sure of the protocol here. If a message is not addressed to
> me, is it proper for me to toss in my 2 cents? If not, Wim, or
> somebody, please let me know.
>
> wim said to MarkM:
> I don't agree that DQ is more moral than sq.
>
> msh butts in::
> This turns the entire MOQ on its head, IMO. The way I read it, any
> static value latch-up due to the the influence of DQ is a moral step
> upward. Static values attempting to "freeze" DQ result in degeneracy
> from DQ. If DQ itself can cause degeneracy then you are describing
> an entirely different metaphysics for which I can find no evidence in
> Pirsig's writing.
>
> wim offered:
> Pirsig wrote in his introduction to Lila's Child:
> 'After reading through these and many other comments, I've concluded
> that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ would be to
> block the notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every
> moral problem in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The
> image in my mind as I wrote it was of a large football field that
> gave meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line
> but did not decide which team would win."
>
> msh says:
> Don't know about others, but I certainly don't expect the MOQ to be a
> quick fix for all of society's moral problems. I view it as a great
> foundation for further development, hopefully resulting in a system
> of thought that will help us advance toward a more moral society.
>
>
> Pirsig continued, ala Wim:
> "That was the point of the two opposing arguments over the death
> penalty described in Lila. That was the point of the equilibrium
> between static and Dynamic Quality. Both are moral arguments. Both
> can claim the MOQ for support.'
>
> msh says:
> I believe Pirsig argued in LILA that MAYBE capital punishment is
> justified if the person to be killed can be shown to be a real threat
> to the existence of the society, such as a spy or traitor or
> something. (I think even this is arguable, since that spy or traitor
> might very well be the Brujo, but I'll let it slide.) But, on the
> the SAME PAGE, the overwhelming argument against CP is that when you
> kill a person you are killing a source of ideas (almost a direct
> quote, I believe).
>
> I have no idea why Pirsig, in his intro to LC (if this quote is
> accurate and in context) appears to be backing away from his original
> position. Being politic, maybe? Anyway, both arguments are moral,
> yes, but one is clearly superior to the other, as will be evident to
> anyone who re-reads the relevant passages.
>
> wim says to MarkM:
> Next to your suggestion I would suggest as equally valid:
> 1. Dynamic Quality may create new patterns of value except where
> this -measured by standards of Static Quality- would imply
> degeneration (i.e. substituting better patterns of value with worse
> ones).
>
> msh says:
> See above. A metaphysics where DQ may or may not do something based
> on SV conditions, where DQ would cause degeneration, is a completely
> different metaphysics. Wimaphysics?
>
> 2. Dynamic Quality must respect existing standards of Static
> Quality.
>
> msh says:
> This is Wimaphysics. And, by the way, a metaphysics that will
> quickly lead to stagnation.
>
> 3. Dynamic Quality must claim room for change of and relative
> freedom from static patterns of value, but only there where this
> change doesn't endanger the highest quality static patterns of value
> existing.
>
> msh says:
> Wimaphysics.
>
> Best to all,
> Mark Steven Heyman
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
>
> "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
> everything." -- Henri Poincare'
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat May 29 2004 - 18:21:16 BST