Kevin
Think I'll just let Pirsig talk with just a hint of CAPITALS for emphasis:
"Morality is not a SIMPLE set of rules. It is a very complex struggle of
CONFLICTING patterns of value" L-P 193.
"The structuring of morality into evolutionary levels suddenly gives shape to
all kinds of BLURRED and CONFUSED moral ideas that are floating around in our
present cultural heritage" L-P163
When the United States drafted troops for the Civil War everyone knew that
innocent people would be murdered. The North could have permitted the slave
states to become independent and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But an
evolutionary MORALITY argues that the North WAS RIGHT IN PURSUING WAR because
a nation is a higher form of evolution than a human body, and the principle of
human equality is an even higher form that a nation. John Brown's truth was
never an abstraction. It still keeps marching on." L-P 160
" And beyond that is an even more COMPELLING REASON: societies and thoughts
and principles themselves are no more that sets of STATIC PATTERNS. These
patterns CAN'T by themselves PERCEIVE or ADJUST to DYNAMIC QUALITY. Only a
living being can do that." L-P161
" When societies and cultures and cities are seen not inventions of "man" but
as HIGHER ORGANISMS than biological man, the phenomena of WAR and GENOCIDE and
all the other forms of human exploitation become more intelligible. "Mankind"
has never been interested in getting itself killed. But the super organism,..
who is a pattern of values superimposed on top of biological human bodies,
doesn't mind losing a few bodies to protect his greater interest" L-P 218
" From the Metaphysics of Quality's point of view this devouring of human
bodies is a MORAL ACTIVITY because it more moral for a social to devour a
biological pattern than for a biological pattern to devour a social pattern."
L-P219
[Dave]
And then read on from 219 to the end of the chapter.
Point 1
Pirsig very clearly states (above) that under MoQ in certain instances and
with certain qualifications WAR IS MORAL.
Point 2
[Kevin]
I cannot but abhor the idiocy implicit in such a comment as "War is Dynamic
Quality."
[Dave]
Yes it could only have been idiocy that led me to provoke a known dogmatic
position. But if metaphysics is a degeneracy, poking at dogma must be too.
So one more, degenerative, time. Under MoQ:
Dynamic Quality is defined as both the source of all; and the source of all changes.
Individuals experience Dynamic Quality though a Quality Event.
The exposure Dynamic Quality has the potential to change the static pattern
that was there preceding the event.
War consists of large groups of individuals waiting indeterminable numbers of
boring seconds interrupted by instantous, violent, and powerful quality
events that can potentially change their lives and all lives on earth forever;
or end them. If as individuals they are not experiencing dynamic quality in
those instances then there is no viable MoQ.
Do I applaud these conclusions as a justification for war, do I revel in the
sight of severed limbs and napalmed children, am I raising my child in the
hopes of sending her to be slaughtered! Not NO! but, **** NO! But would I, and
did I, take a powder to Canada or Oxford when faced with that choice. ****
NO! Could I have made that choice, yes. Was my choice in retrospect wrong? Mu
question. Because my life is not "is not a SIMPLE set of rules. It is a very
complex struggle of CONFLICTING patterns of value and morality"
And the complex struggle of conflicting patterns that were then; are not and
will not be now. Or any then to come.
You are welcome to respond this post but I'm done with this particular venue.
There are many other issues of MoQ to be explored a this one has consumed far
to much time, with scant little show cooperation, unity, or progress.
Dave
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
