Hi Platt, I just posted on Quality and non-Being something which may be relevant. I don't think the subjective aspects of Quality are important. What is important is that Quality does have a moral bias or direction. Whether we can agree on our perceptions does not matter for the existence and guidance of Quality. I believe we are in touch with Quality all the time, that is what is important, not to statically write down a set of commandments.
Willblake2 On Mar 14, 2009, at 5:34:44 PM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Subjectivity in the MOQ Date: March 14, 2009 5:34:44 PM PDT To: [email protected] > 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 Hi Joe, Thanks for responding, but I don't grasp your point. Do you think moral choices are relative to individuals and/are cultures or not? It would seem from Pirsig's SODV quote that it is. But, that would put a kibosh on his idea of a universal morality would it not? To put it another way, what moral standards does the MOQ propose, if any? If there are standards, by what authority would they be enforced if each individual is allowed to make moral choices based on his life history? Thanks, Platt > > 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/ 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/
