On Tuesday 17 March 2009 6:39AM Platt writes to Joe: > Hi Joe, > > First of all, I'm entirely in agreement with the purpose of these > discussions being a large measure of fun. When it ceases to be > fun, time to move on. > > Second, in a book dedicated to "An Inquiry into Morals" that > we're discussing on this site I think we should not shy away from > talking about morals, not with the idea of telling others how to > behave but simply examining current moral questions in light of > the insights provided by the MOQ. Hopefully that can be done in > a spirit of civility without mean-spirited personal attacks that > some here are prone to flame whenever their views are challenged. > > Finally, your distinction between order and manifestation is not > clear to me. Is it the difference between the law as written and > the law as practiced? If you would care to expand on the idea, > perhaps with some examples of the difference, I would appreciate it. Hi Platt and all,
Levels are described in a hierarchical order creating a basis for morality. Inorganic, organic, etc., a law of four or seven. Usually order is self-evident A manifestation is within the same order. The activity is seen from three points view active +, passive -, or neutral 0. Laws can be passed against a natural manifestation and judges decide the morality. IMO criminality is a matter of judgment unless the event destroys evolution (natural law). Joe On 3/17/09 6:39 AM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Saturday 14 March 2009 5:34 PM Platt responds to Joe; >> >> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> Thanks for responding, but I don't grasp your point. Do you think >>> moral choices are relative to individuals and/are cultures or >>> not? It would seem from Pirsig's SODV quote that it is. But, that >>> would put a kibosh on his idea of a universal morality would it >>> not? To put it another way, what moral standards does the MOQ >>> propose, if any? If there are standards, by what authority would >>> they be enforced if each individual is allowed to make >>> moral choices based on his life history? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Platt >> >> Hi Platt, >> >> IMO Pirsig posits a moral order of evolution: Inorganic etc.. Is this >> hierarchical order in existence, the metaphysical basis for a moral >> judgment? What is being judged? Is it a manifestation of an individual >> person within an event or the hierarchical order? IMO According to >> Pirsig >> there are four orders in existence inorganic, organic, social, >> intellectual, >> a moral order. I prefer an analogy to the musical scale for order, >> seven >> levels in DQ existence. >> >> What is the measure for a manifestation within a particular order? Does >> MOQ >> the statement of the order, DQ/SQ the experience within the order >> qualify? >> IMO these three things are present in an individual manifestation. What >> it >> is, what it is not, what is the neutral support level (+,-,0). >> >> Can I observe a law of 4 or 7 in determining the level for order? A law >> of >> three to determine the manifestation? IMO Both are involved in a moral >> judgment. >> >> Enforcement is good or bad. I don¹t know if my thoughts are any >> clearer? >> The metaphysics of morality (experience) is difficult without >> commandments >> or particular decisions to judge. >> >> I would guess the standard of authority to be what is metaphysically >> described. And here I thought we were just having fun! >> >> Joe > > 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/ 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/
