Ham: > 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. Value judgments and moral judgments are synonymous in the MOQ.
> 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? Looks to me like you are proponent of moral relativism. Right? > 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. Pirsig defines continuum differently: ." By 'continuum' he means that it goes on and on forever." (SODV) No "gradients" apply. You may be tilting at windmills. Happy St. Patrick's Day, 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/
