Platt  to Andre:

Each of us is relative to morality. But, since DQ is not
defined, each of us can respond to it any old way we want including
ignoring it all together. After all, Pirsig says we have free will.

Andre:
Correct Platt, but am not sure what you mean by 'any old way'. The MoQ is a
wonderful 'finger' no? And, yes, we can ignore it altogether with all the
consequences Pirsig so forcefully describes in Chapter 20- 24 in Lila.

Platt:
We can follow DQ if we want. But since it is some sort of vague betterness,
we are free to define that betterness as we wish, depending on our life
history.

Andre:
I have a different interpretation Platt. From an MoQ perspective we cannot
not respond to DQ. We do it all the time. We are patterned quality and we
realise this. Are you 'some sort of vage betterness'?? in relation to your
organic and inorganic 'levels'? And isn't it a dynamically exciting place
(in a high- and low quality sense ) that this has been achieved through the
diversity of 'life histories' (i.e expressing [as in 'living'] patterns of
value...the villains,the martyrs, the artists...you and I.

Platt:
That's moral relativism.

Andre:
Question: is 'moral relativism' a SOM concept?

Andre:
Does the expression of this diversity subtract from morality (as lived) or
add to its richness?
If evolution indeed shows an expression of freedom from static patterns,
i.e. from inorganic, to organic to social and intellectual PoV's, towards an
aesthetic harmony (as Pirsig argues) the impossiblity/unacceptability of
individual freedom to respond to DQ ( and this concerns you in the name of
some 'moral relativism') will lead to the acceptance of societies you (and I
) vehemently abhor.
Morality is not a thing'. It is not a concept. It cannot be
'relativised'. It is the 'undifferentiated, aesthetic continuum', and we are
patterned expressions of this.

Platt:
That's what concerns me. Any thoughts?

Andre:
I do not share your concern Platt. Once you climb inside the MoQ, once you
become aware that you and I ARE those patterns, and stop seeing the MoQ from
the outside as some sort of theoretical ,conceptual framework, things will
begin to be a little clearer, at least it does so for me. IMHO.

I think I may cop some flack here...well let it come.

Regards
Andre
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/

Reply via email to