Platt and All --
A major premise of the MOQ is the existence of a universal moral order, of good and evil, right and wrong. Understanding this moral order depends on understanding the constant conflicts between the evolutionary moral levels. What is right at the biological level (the law of the jungle) is wrong at the social level (laws of society), etc. Also required is the assumption of an indefinable moral force called Dynamic Quality. But when it comes to individuals, universal morality appears to revert to individual idiosyncrasies. In a word, morality becomes subjective -- a concept the MOQ otherwise attempts to deny. "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity." (Pirsig--SODV) With one stroke Pirsig overthrows his premise of universal morality by admitting to moral relativity. ... Perhaps this is what our friend Ham has been banging about all along. So to all true blue MOQites I ask, "Where have I gone wrong in this post?"
Friend Ham is not sure whether this Pirsig "stroke" is a really a contradiction of "universal morality" or not, since the word "morality" doesn't appear in the SODV paper. Clearly, our notions of morality vary in accordance with one's individual upbringing and cultural influences. These may be considered the "static patterns" that "influence his final judgment." At least the author allows for subjective "judgment" which, in my opinion, is the determining factor of any morality system. If we cannot judge or discriminate goodness from badness there is no morality, either subjectively or in the collective society. For if Value remains unrealized, how or why should we choose to be moral in our behavior? And, if morality is universal, how could we be free to choose immorality?
What I object to, from a metaphysical perspective, is the definition of fundamental reality as "the aesthetic continuum". Here's an example from Andre's 3/13 post in the "Chance v. Dynamic Quality" thread:
[Andre]:
A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at length in the light of the chemistry professor analogy. First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent', nor 'poof'', nor anything teleological in the theological sense. It is the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
Now, a "continuum" is an uninterrupted sequence or "gradient" of change -- as in a prismatic spectrum or the set of real numbers, whereas everything in existence is relative and differentiated. What is implied here is that Quality (Value) is such a continuum, i.e., a continuous range from good to evil, or beautiful to hideous, as it were. That, indeed, is the perspective of the value-sensible subject in a relational world. But it makes no sense as the fundamental or primary source of reality -- if this is what Dynamic Quality (Value) is alleged to be. Instead it makes existential reality an "amoral universe" in which the value-sensible agent chooses what is desirable or undesirable, moral or immoral, in his/her interpretation of experience. This valuistic continuum or gradient exists only so long as there is a cognizant subject to actualize it as finite objects (things and events experienced as "real"). Ultimate Reality is not a gradient but the absolute, undifferentiated source of what can only be realized incrementally by the sensible agent.
That, my friend Platt, is what I have "been banging about all along". I can't speak for Pirsig, but I sense that you may finally be getting the drift of my value thesis. And, while that is most gratifying to me, others here will have to weigh its relevance to the MoQ.
Essentially yours, Ham 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/
