Platt to Andre: 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. .
Bodvar: I'm not sure what Pirsig means by "individual evaluations of quality" 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. Andre: Exactly Bodvar (and Platt), and I am not sure if the 'anything goes' applies either. If evolution is a migration of static patterns toward Dynamic Quality (Lila p149) as the MoQ argues, there can be no doubt that individuals and groups follow the good wherever and whenever and however. 'Lila is after Quality, like everybody else but 'she defines it entirely in biological terms. She doesn't see intellectual quality at all. It's outside her range. She doesn't even see social quality' (Lila p218). It would seem that, as per usual, SOM sees this as a narrow, problematic area, (science is not concerned with morals, they are left to the church) the MoQ can point quite precisely to what codes of morality various behaviours (and motivations) apply to. (inorganic/chaotic, biological/ inorganic, social/biological, intellectual/social and dynamic/static) (Lila p307). I would argue that this would open up more (intelligent) philosophical consideration. Quality is at issue here; the Good. Individual decisions are made regarding this good all the time. It is not necessarily a question of good or bad. It appears to be a conflict of differing ideas about the good. This occurs not only at the individual level but also at the group and national level. I am certain that Muslim societies organised on the basis of the Koran principles are convinced they are 'good'. China and other socialist countries base their ideas of 'good' on the basis of Marxist/ Leninist (Mao'ist) interpretations of 'good'. I.e philosophical ideas. Western countries, of all variety and ilk, have their philosophical ideas about 'the good', integrated within their political, economic and social institutions...which may not always complement eachother (intra-nationally and internationally). Anyway, I am not an expert on politics, economics, philosophy or the MoQ for that matter but do , slowly begin to realise the clarity with which the MoQ can analyse the various and differing relationships quality has. At an individual, group, national and international level. This beginning understanding may show us where the points of agree- and disagreements lie, and on this basis a possible opening up of a path toward more harmonious relationships. For what it is worth 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/
