Hi Andre, Thanks for replying. As I look at all the moral conflicts that have ravaged humanity in the past and continue to this day, it appears as if responses to DQ are, to put in mildly, diverse. Couple that with Pirsig's admitting that individual responses to DQ are bound to be different due to differing life histories, where is there common ground? Must we be tolerant of all moral stances? Must we resign ourselves to the concept that all moral decisions are equal? Must we adopt the attitude, "Whatever?"
True, the MOQ offers a general moral guide, but we have been warned by Pirsig himself not to apply it to specific situations. There's the rub. When it comes to an individual's decisions of what is right or wrong in a given situation, anything goes because of different life histories. . In any case, I appreciate your addressing these issues. It's passing strange to me that participants in MOQ_ discuss rarely talk about morality when a moral world is the MOQ's fundamental premise. Platt > 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/
