Bo and Folks! Not much time left this month! Time to be more anal er.. analytical.
I think we agree on what is meant as the social level. This is not a strict
definition, but
social values are emotions we *experience* in relation to one another. Kinship,
jealousy,
admiration, acceptance, and so forth.
We also agree social values -- such as these -- can be seen as positive or negative
from an
intellectual standpoint. I want to be more concise here, however. If someone has
jealousy -- a
"negative" social experience -- that is reality regardless of the label. It is the
actions and
choices that are relevant to our discussion. It here I claim application of the MOQ is
arbitrary: application of the level hierarchy.
BO, I'm not sure if you agree or not? I see a bunch of "Yes, but..." . I think that
you don't
view the MOQ as arbitrary, but -- as you said before -- difficult to apply.
Suppose I feel jealous of some Mr.-I-am-Perfect. I may be sick of people praising him
and being
insensitive to my needs to be recognized. What do I do? What does the MOQ say? ANY
choice I
make involves my reasoning of this social situation. There is no purely "social" or
"intellectual" solution. (I saw Star Trek and it is similarly wrong -- with
McCoy/Spock
mis-representing emotion/logic.)
Forgetting the MOQ, I would intuit that it would probably be best to try to get over my
jealousy, or communicate my feelings. That would be better than -- say -- killing the
guy.
My hunch is that Pirsigers would say that the "communication" option is more moral
than the
"killing" option because it is from the higher intellectual level. BY WHAT CRITERIA
DOES ON
MAKE THE DISTINCTION?
A. "Communication" is more *logical* and from the intellectual level.
This is probably true. The MOQ, however, would claim nothing to ANY moral situation
other than
"do that which is more logical". All *choice* involves at least some trace of logic
so here we
are stuck.
You mentioned that will, attention, and attitude fall within the intellectual level.
Doesn't
that stress this point? We can't control anything other than our will.
B. Killing the guy would kill his ideas (the intellectual level) and hurt society
(which
supports the intellectual level) so "Communication" is the moral solution.
Here, the MOQ is interpreted as "do that which fosters ideas". As you said, the MOQ
is too
complicated to apply, and I think this is where you are coming from. How can we be
sure what
option fosters the most ideas? I take this further. Are ideas really the most
important
thing? Would killing -- for example -- ALWAYS be justified to preserve an idea?
And what *kinds* of ideas are most important? Everyone's mind is filled with them.
Anyone
could justify their action citing the MOQ as dynamically supporting *their* great idea
over a
societal norm. Again, it comes down to which ideas are better, and we are at the same
point we
were before knowing the MOQ.
C. ?????
Another challenge. Can anyone give ANY example, where knowledge of the MOQ has
changed your
opinion on a moral issue. Please avoid examples already discussed by Pirsig.
Once again, I really appreciate your patience traveling down this path with me.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
