Hi Platt
Due to much traffic at my end I haven't had the capacity to follow
all debates, but in a quiet moment I discovered this from your
hand.
> 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.
Let me say that I like your "existence of a universal moral order"
(or existence AS a moral order) formulation much better than the
many "how do we perceive quality" and the like of it that circulates.
> 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'm not sure what Pirsig means by "individual evaluations of
quality" but if it is something as mundane as why one person like
sweets and another doesn't, it's biological differences, but if it's
about why a person from one culture eat something that makes
one from another culture vomit it's that food preferences are
social-influenced. However social value itself means that we ARE
sensible to the group. To adopt food customs is of course low on
this scale while adopting the ultimate CAUSE is the highest, yet,
its' this identification with others which is the key, and that is the
same all over ....the universe.
> 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.
If your mean something like the example in LILA about the
professors being tolerant of the thugs it's about the intellectual
level, their tolerance due to intellect's notorious S/O attitude; no
one is responsible we are either victim of genes (objective) or of
upbringing (subjective). MOQ's attitude to this issue is as you
know that law & order is required to uphold a viable social
platform for a viable intellect. But not the harsh justice of cultures
where the social level is top notch. The breakdown of L & O is due
to our western cultures having intellect as top notch. and it's here
the MOQ will limit intellect-as-SOM's supremacy.
> 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?"
I don't know what responses you have received, but I don't see
"Pirsig's acknowledgment of subjective nature of moral judgments"
on this issue, nor how "the MOQ can be tossed out of serious
philosophical consideration". Exactly here the MOQ clears up what
has no solution in SOM - i.e. inside the intellectual level.
IMO
Bo
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/
