Hey Bo, > 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.
[Platt] > > 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. [Bo] > 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. I like your "existence as a moral order." That really throws MOQ critics into a tizzy. [Platt] > > 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." [Bo] > 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. Multiculturism (and its twin idea, "diversity) pollute U.S. college campuses as the only way to judge societies and individuals -- celebrate differences and never think that any one is morally superior to another. This is the natural fall out from the belief that "There are no absolutes" along with the companion notion that "Truth is whatever you can get away with." Result? As usual, Pirsig cited the underlying problem:: "It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to blame for the social deterioration of America, because it has undermined the static social values necessary to prevent deterioration. In its condemnation of social repression as the enemy of liberty, it has never come forth with a single moral principle that distinguishes a Galileo fitting social repression from a common criminal fighting social repression. It has, as a result, been the champion of both. That's the root of the problem." (Lila, 24) [Platt] > > 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. [Bo] > 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). Yes, that's a perfect example, as cited above. [Bo] > 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. No doubt S/O intellect is a culprit, but individual moral judgments based on the one's life history that Pirsig describes in SODV also serves to bolster the idea of morals being adrift in a sea of a moral "whatevers" -- just the opposite of the MOQ position of a "moral order." [Platt] > > 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?" [Bo] > 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. Quite true. Academics are slaves to SOM, the underlying error. But In addition, having decided morals are relative, academics don't see any need to "clear up" what they consider to be an absolute truth (even while denying there are absolute truths.) In other words, why try to fix a nonexistent problem? "Morals are relative, we know it, and even Pirsig admits it in the SODV. So let's move on to more important matters, like deconstructing the deconstructionists." In many respects, academics are like priests, banning upsetting challengers like Pirsig or Ayn Rand from their dioceses. In the words of Pirsig again: "Shamans, on the other hand, are arrant individualists. Each is on his own, undisciplined by bureaucratic control; hence a shaman is always a threat to the order of the organized church. In the view of the priests they are presumptive pretenders." (Lila, 9) Regards, 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/
