> [Platt]
> Pirsig stated that the world is primarily a moral order: "Because Quality is
> morality. Make no mistake about it. They're identical. And if Quality is the
> primary reality of the world then that means morality is also the primary
> reality of the world. The world is primarily a moral order." (Lila, 7)
>
> So to clear up the confusion, do you agree?
>
> [Krimel]
> I agree that there is a sense in which this is true but I suspect we
> disagree strongly over what that "sense" is. I would say that it is true in
> the sense that morality is no more definable than Quality. We see morality
> or The Good in nature to the extent that the perception of them has been
> programmed into us by evolution. We are biologically prepared to see things
> as good that promoted the survival of our ancestors. Likewise we tend to see
> things as bad that would have hindered the survival of our ancestors.
[Platt]
Am I correct in thinking that you see Quality and morality as attributes
solely of human beings and are irrelevant concepts as far as the lower
animals and the laws of physics are concerned?
In regards to survival, Pirsig asked: "But why do the fittest survive? Why
does any life survive?" (Lila, 11) Do you agree with his answer?
[Krimel]
> I would say this is an idea that unites William James' Functionalism with
> his Pragmatism. In examining human experience James claimed we should look
> at the function served by our responses to our experiences. We do not
> continue to do things that do not serve some end. With his pragmatism he was
> claiming that the truth of something is measured by its results. Things that
> work persist.
[Platt]
About James' pragmatism, Pirsig wrote: "The idea that satisfaction alone is
the test of anything is very dangerous, according to the Metaphysics of
Quality. There are different kinds of satisfaction and some of them are
moral nightmares. The Holocaust produced a satisfaction among Nazis. That
was quality for them. They considered it to be practical. But it was a
quality dictated by low level static social and biological patterns whose
overall purpose was to retard the evolution of truth and. Dynamic Quality.
James would probably have been horrified to find that Nazis could use his
pragmatism just as freely as anyone else, but Phaedrus didn't see anything
that would prevent it." (Lila, 29) Do you agree?
> [Platt]
> If efforts to find a specific set of morals in nature have not fared well,
> what makes you think morals are "natural" and "built into the fabric of the
> universe?"
>
> [Krimel]
> Built into the fabric of the universe is the somewhat circular notion that
> Static Forms persist; that the shape of things to come is determined by what
> has been. Take the stalagmites that "grow" in underground caverns. When
> water starts to drip from the ceiling of the cave it is determined that the
> residue in the evaporating water will start to build up on the cave floor.
> The shape it takes over time is determined but the specific shape varies
> based on all manner of random effects in the cave. When we look at any given
> example of a stalagmite we see both the general rule and the specific
> manifestation.
[Platt]
I'm confused. Is this an example of natural morals?
> [Platt]
> Yes. Reminds me of the scientific "consensus" about eugenics in the 1920s.
>
> [Krimel]
> You really like this example don't you. In an ideal sort of way eugenics is
> a great idea. The principles used to breed animals of a given sort would
> work just as well on humans. There really is not much doubt about this. The
> problem is that we really don't know what would be the "best" things to
> build into an "improved" human species. That and we really do not know of a
> social viable way to work with selective human breeding partners. On the
> other hand increases in scientific knowledge may be solving the social part
> of the problem for us in that we will soon be able to manipulate human DNA
> in such a way as to accomplish the goal of "improvement" without the social
> consequences. Of course this will leave us with the biggest half of the
> problem still unsolved.
My point is simply that consensus among scientists (or any other group)
isn't always reliable.
> [Platt]
> Speaking of puzzling posts, how do cannibalism and burial of the dead both
> serve the same moral functions?
>
> {Krimel]
> The moral or social function is to deal with the passing of loved ones and
> to show respect for the dead. In some cultures this is done through burial
> rituals and in some cultures this may involve consuming a part of the dead
> person's flesh.
>
> The point being that from a purely scientific standpoint the key is
> identifying the social or biological functions that need to be served. From
> a moral or ethical point of view the specific practices are the chief
> concern.
[Platt]
So is your position that from a purely scientific standpoint, the functions
to be served have nothing to do with morals?
[Krimel]
> I could be wrong here but I think you are expecting to see specific
> practices morally woven into the fabric of the primary reality. I tend to
> see specific social practices as individual stalagmites, determined by the
> natural order but shaped by the random events.
[Platt]
How is the specific practice of burial determined by the "natural order?"
[Krimel]
> This is the point Pirsig seems to miss when he says, "He could invent moral
> goals for himself, but they are just artificial inventions." Here he is
> talking about the specific practices which are in large measure arbitrary.
> This misses the point about the general functions served by the practice and
> the fact the practices themselves are shaped by and subjected to
> evolutionary pressures. If they don't serve the function they will be
> abandoned or modified. And we do not create artificial inventions that serve
> no function.
[Platt]
How is burial shaped by evolutionary pressures? Animals don't bury their
dead.
When you speak of "evolutionary pressures" and "natural order" do you
believe they result from moral forces?.
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/
