> [Platt] > When you say "better," do you mean "more moral?" Pirsig does. I do. > > [Arlo] > I dont think Pirsig does. As I quoted, he uses the terms "values" and > "morals" more or less interchangeably. So to say something is "more > moral" is a judgement that must come from the level above it, and is > a determination based on how that pattern interacts with said higher level. > > For example, within the biological level I don't think he'd say that > a berry is "less moral" than a "fish". By this line of reasoning, > inorganic patterns are the least moral things in the universe. This > just does not make sense to me.
In his writings Pirsig equates Quality (value, morality) to what's better or "betterness" a number of times. I'll cite just one: "When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness"-this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." (Lila, 12) > [Platt] > I wonder from the berry's point of view if it doesn't consider what > the bear is doing to it as immoral. If I was a berry I would think so. > > [Arlo] > If the berry could consider this, it would certainly be immoral. > Since it can't, it isn't. What a berry can or cannot consider is something neither you or I can ever know. I think at one time we all pretty much agreed that all patterns are aware at their own level in whatever awareness that level permits. For example, those inorganic patterns Pirsig refers to in the above quotation must have had some sort of awareness in order to seek betterness (life). > [Platt] > Also, what about my question, "Is it possible to leave man out of the MOQ?" > > [Arlo] > I can presume that inorganic and biological patterns, for Pirsig, > would continue to "be". Pirsig may disagree but I'd wager that some > social patters would continue to exist within the mammal-animal > kingdoms. For all intents and purposes, intellect would disappear. At > least intellect as evolved as it is now, maybe very rudimentary > patterns of intellect would continue (again, I know Pirsig would say > no to this). So if the question is, would the conception of the MOQ > exist without man, the answer is, of course, no. The MOQ is quite a > complex intellectual pattern, and no such patterns have ever been > witnessed emerging from any other species than man (yet?). If this > does not answer your question, you'll have to rephrase it. OK. I asked because I don't see how we can avoid being anthropomorphic about morality at the inorganic and biological levels. 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/
