Hi Ham, [Platt previously] > > The "scale of being" is a construct of human intellection that > > creates hierarchies. Pirsig's hierarchy is from least to most moral. The > > classical "Great Chain of Being" goes from rocks at the bottom to God at > > the top. In physics and science in general, the hierarchy consists of > > increasing complexity....
[Ham] > The logic of your "morality" seems flawed to me. If, as you claim, the > universe is inherently moral, then all its constituents are euqally moral. I don't think that follows. My car is important, but not all its constituents are equally important. The battery is lot more important than a hub cap. Don't see why the same shouldn't apply to the universe. > Is a rock less moral simply because it lacks the "complexity" of a cat or a > man? The moral hierarchy presented by Pirsig has little to do with "complexity." The simplist thought has higher moral value than a complex bacterium. > Looked at this way, the rock can't help it if it doesn't have a > nervous system. This isn't "immoral" on the rock's part. It can be no > more "moral" than it is created to be. Morality has nothing to do with whether an entity can "help" being moral or not. A rock is less moral than a human being simply by its position on the moral hierarchy, and by its inability to respond to Dynamic Quality-- the moral driving force. > If what you really mean is that what has sensibility is more moral than > what does not, I could accept the logic but not the definition. Morality > infers "choice". The moral choices that created the moral hierarchy were made by certain building blocks of nature like particles, atoms, cells, molecules, organisms and minds responding to the moral force of Dynamic Quality. > As I see it, a rock has no choice but to be an inert > chunk of matter. Right. A rock is not one of building blocks of nature. It is, as you say, an inert conglomerate. > To say that this state represents a "low level of > morality" is like blaming the pen's inability to write because it has no > ink. Again. No one "blames" the rock for being at a low moral level. [Platt previously} > > These hierarchies are intellect's way of bringing order out of > > chaos. Your hierarchy of all embracing Essence down to > > Man and below is another interesting "scale of being." > > Reason is what brings order out of chaos. (Or, as I would phrase it, > balance out of diversity.) Labeling objects as species, phyla, types, > divisions, and heirarchies is a way of reasoning. I don't see that it has > any relevance to morality. The moral hierarchy and other aspects of Pirsig's metaphysics is a reasoned way of understanding reality, just as your philosophy purports to accomplish the same. For the rest we disagree to some extent about the meaning of terms like sensitivity, sensibility, apprehension and the like. I doubt if further discussion will be of benefit to either one of us. Suffice to say I am less confused than before, but still confused nonetheless. For your patience, much thanks. Best regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
