Hi Ken,
Your disagreement with Pirsig is clear:
Ken: �I would prefer to assign each of the four levels equal weight in
evaluating morality.�
Pirsig: �In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a
higher level of evolution, is more moral." (Lila, Chp. 13)
According to your morality of "equal weight" what is to say that it's wrong
for a doctor to kill a germ to save a patient?
For you to suggest that Pirsig gives short shrift to the moral importance of
the lower levels is wrong. He makes it clear that each level must not harm
the level below it lest it harm itself:
�An evolutionary morality . . contains a warning: Just as a society that
weakens its people's physical health endangers its own stability, so does
an intellectual pattern that weakens and destroys the health of its social
base also endanger its own stability.� (Lila, Chp. 13)
I'm sure the MOQ doesn't present the environmentalist agenda as strongly
as you might like. But, that doesn't mean it ignores the value of the
inorganic and biological levels to human existence. My guess is that
Pirsig simply assumes that most of his readers would admit that it's bad to
poison the air and water. (-:
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
