Hi Struan, Rob and Group:
In his Feb 25 post Struan asked:
>More importantly (and following a question Rob forwarded) I would be
>interested to know of any moral decisions anyone has made which have
>been decided in reference to a �reality-based rational framework� of the
>MoQ in contradistinction to being rationalised by said framework after
>the event.
As a direct result of the MoQ I've changed my mind regarding capital
punishment. Before I was all for it; now I'm against it. Why? Because of
what Pirsig wrote in Lila, Chap. 13: �. . . societies and thoughts and
principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These
patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only
a living being can do that. The strongest moral argument against capital
punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic capability--its
capability for change and evolution.�
There's a specific example, but lest anyone get the wrong idea I agree
with both Struan and Rob that the vast majority of decisions (all of which
are moral in the Pirsigian sense--"this is better than that") are made
unthinkingly as the result of instinct (survival), socialization and religious
training (some would say brainwashing) from early childhood, and
memories from personal experience (it worked before it's likely to work
again). One doesn't normally refer to Aristotle, Hegel, Pirsig or Dr. Laura
to decide if Bill Clinton is unworthy of being President. Nevertheless, as
Struan has rightly pointed out, all decisions about Clinton's behavior and
other moral issues ultimately have a metaphysical base. The fact that
most people don't realize this simply shows that intellect still has a long,
long way to go.
Try as I might I'm having trouble understanding Rob's plea for
�sensitivity.� Am I correct in assuming that it would be better if we
dumped the intellect in favor of all becoming Zen Buddhists?
Rob, if you care to I would ask that you explain in more detail just how
you might go about getting OJ and the rest of us to "embrace reality.�
And how it's possible to live without making judgments and coming to
conclusions. Your views sound anti-intellectual to me, but I wouldn't be at
surprised if I've again misinterpreted your philosophy.
I would also ask Rob if he agrees with the following from LILA, Chap. 24:
�What the metaphysics of quality indicates is that the twentieth century
intellectual faith in man's basic goodness as spontaneous and natural is
disastrously naive. The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone
cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a
devastating fiction. It isn't consistent with scientific fact.�
I look forward to Rob's views as well as any others in the group who want
to chime in.
Platt
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
