On Saturday 14 March 2009 8:27 AM Platt asks all: <snip>
"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. Further, he implies that to overcome moral relativity is impossible because "each person has a different static pattern of life history." <snip> "Where have I go wrong in this post?" Hi Platt and all, If principles for a manifestation are established, are they the same as the principles for an order? DQ is an undefined principle in order expressed by evolution MOQ. I prefer 7 levels of evolution. DQ is also coupled with SQ in a manifestation within a particular order of evolution, MOQ DQ/SQ. IMO The relationships of DQ between a manifestation and order are different. DQ as the order of evolution stands alone since it is describing existence. For a manifestation, MOQ, the DQ stands with SQ as evolution as Pirsig says. Joe On 3/14/09 8:27 AM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Further, he implies that to overcome moral > relativity is impossible because "each person has a different static > pattern of life history." > > I think moral relativists (the multiculturist, political correctness, > tolerance-above-all crowd) that infest academia would eagerly seize on > Pirsig's acknowledgment of subjective nature of moral judgments to toss the > MOQ out of serious philosophical consideration if indeed they haven't > already done so. > > Perhaps this is what our friend Ham has been banging about all along. So to > all true blue MOQites I ask, "Where have I go wrong in this post?" > > 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/ 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/
