[Platt]
I argue for the superiority of a particular culture based on Pirsig's
moral
hierarchy, as he explained:
"A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological
values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a
culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social
values is absolutely superior to one that does not. It is immoral to
speak
against a people because of the color of their skin, or any other
genetic
characteristic because these are not changeable and don't matter anyway.
But it is not immoral to speak against a person because of his cultural
characteristics if those cultural characteristics are-immoral. These are
changeable and they do matter." (Lila, 24)
{Ron}
Because this is such an important issue, I'm going to beat this horse.
Lets take this statement apart a little.
Pirsig says that what defines high morals is the cultural support of
intellectual value.
Intellectual value amounts to individual opinion. Individual opinion
Is shaped by cultural value.
In effect what he is saying is that
Superiority is based in individual opinion and the individuals' ability
To express that opinion. Expression varies by culture.
He says opinions should be based on what can be changed.
This change is compliance with the individual opinion.
Cultural superiority is only valid and relevant when holding other
cultures to your Own cultures values and personal opinion.
And you know what they say about opinions.
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/
