On 16 Sep 2010 at 11:20, Magnus Berg wrote: Hi Platt
That was interesting. Wasn't you one the SOL people? Then we can remove you from that list. You seem to have a much broader view of the intellectual level than only S/O logic. [P] How so? Whether you think the intellectual level is SOL or something else, it still is morally superior to the social level. And you didn't answer my question: How does that work? The question was asking how society can treat humans as both morally superior and morally inferior at the same time. I say it can't, and that is why the original question those distinguished scientists ask is hard. Society has to weigh the higher and lower morality against each other and make a duhsicion. It can't use the clear rules of the MoQ, it becomes a compromise. [P] If Pirsig can't explain to you how that works by his own words, then I certainly can't. Pirsig has made it clear that the MOQ doesn't provide "clear rules" in deciding all moral questions but rather " . . .a large football field that gave meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but did not decide which team would win." I guess the MOQ is like your "stacks." Not everybody buys it or them. On 2010-09-15 22:56, [email protected] wrote: > How does that work? Easy. Intellect is the individual, society is the group > (the Giant). The individual is morally superior to society, society morally > superior to biology. This is basic MOQ. Perhaps the following quote from > Pirsig > will make clear the moral difference between the levels: > > "When a society is not itself threatened, as in the execution of individual > criminals, the issue becomes more complex. In the case of treason or > insurrection or war a criminal´s threat to a society can be very real. But if > an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal, > then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification > for killing him. > What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a biological > organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society. Whenever you kill a > human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a > collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society. > Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than > social patterns of value. Just as it is more moral for a doctor to kill a germ > than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill a society than it is > for a society to kill an idea. (Lila, 13) > > Key idea: Whenever you kill a human being (an individual), you are killing a > source of thought too. > > Which makes the decision of who lives and who dies when a expensive > life-saving > drug or technique is available is, as two distinguished scientists agreed, > "the > most difficult ethical dilemma facing science today." > > > > Magnus Berg wrote: > > "Platt Holden"<[email protected]> wrote: >> Magnus, >> >> Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that you disagree with the >> following from Pirsig:? >> >> "It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of >> intellect vs.society, the moral right >> of intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of speech, freedom of >> assembly, of travel, trial by jury, habeas >> corpus, government by consent -- these "human rights" are all intellect >> vs.society issues. According to the >> Metaphysics of Quality, these "human rights" have not just a sentimental >> basis, but a rational, metaphysical >> basis. They are essential to the evolution of life from a lower level of >> life. They are for real." (Lila, 24) > > I'm saying that the world isn't that black and white as that quote makes > it seem. Just this morning (Swedish time), you pulled another quote (one > of the LC comments) where Pirsig asserted society's right to control its > biological inhabitants. Don't you realize that the two quotes, the LC > quote and the one you provided here are directly contradictory? One > quote asserts the individual human's morality over society, and the > other society's morality over the individual human! > > How does that work? > > The answer is stacks. The original question is hard because it's not > black and white. Depending on which stack you focus on, you get a > different answer. > > Magnus > > > > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
