> At 11:27 AM 3/14/2009, you 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 > > Greetings Platt, > > I do not know that I think you went wrong. > > For me, the MOQ, the hierarchy of levels, the levels and all static > patterns of value exist because of convention. Good and evil, right > and wrong are also static patterns of value that exist because of > convention, likewise the idea of a universal moral order. Convention > is pattern-making which is static morality, or what is sometimes > labled 'universal moral order'. DQ (MORALITY) is beyond what is > indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. So maybe the stronger, > wider, deeper a moral convention is held, the more universal it > appears. No contradiction, just misunderstanding. At least, this > is my opinion at the moment. > > > Marsha
Hi Marsha, Lots to agree with you. Static patterns rule the day. A deep Dynamic experience is rare indeed, limited to humans maybe once-or-twice-in-a- lifetime. I wouldn't say it was unknowable, but it is certainly inexplicable. Once it's put into words, whammo -- it goes static, conventional. So maybe morality is besides the point. Maybe the point is simply the rare Dynamic experience -- for that experience's sake alone. Love, laughter, beauty. What we live for, and what marks the evolution of life. Thanks for your usual insight, 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/
