In a message dated 12/1/99 6:11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> XCTO:
> Well, Jonathan, I really don't see moral patterns, morals, and
> values as all synonomous, and I want to read where Pirsig says
> that.
>
> PLATT:
> In Lila, end of Chapter 7, Pirsig writes:
> "Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're
> identical. And if quality is the primary reality of the world then that
> means morality is also the primary reality of the world. The world is
> primarily a moral order."
I still don't see Pirsig agreeing about the synonomous part.
To me, it seems like a kind of Boolean logic problem where identified (thus
static) values are the basic unit within the big rectangle (set) of Static
Quality. Morals are rather small circles that are statements of values (and
judgements). Moral patterns are systems of morals that are consistent and
taken as 'moral guides' to membership groups in a MOQ level (big circles).
The bigger the circle, the more Good it is (capturing the most Quality)
In a social group in the Social Level, it seems to me quite clear. The moral
patterns of religion is a certain system of morals taken as a moral guide to
that religious group.
But I think you could say the same about all the levels. It's just that the
Inorganic and Biological levels do not have as much dynamic potential. In
the Intellectual level, membership is at it's greatest and most fractured,
needing the widespread understanding by many different groups in order for a
moral pattern to become accepted. Thus science is the accepted (and best)
way of dynamically changing intellectual knowledge. But EVERYBODY is going
to test you before they are going to accept something new. And not everyone
will accept a dynamic change. This is part of that celebrity factor I was
refering about earlier. We're still talking morality though.
Quality is morality, but not a moral pattern. Moral patterns are not morals,
but a set of morals. Morals are not values, but a set of values. Values are
the basic unit of Quality. Hmm, almost the right answer, but I'm sure
someone can say it better.
Statement: Saying morals patterns, morals, and values are comparable is
comparing apples and oranges in a fruit salad.
Not really a good analogy because one fruit is not a subsystem of another,
maybe I should use granny apples as the subset of Green Apples, as a subset
to ALL APPLES, as a part of the big FRUIT SALAD...
I'm hoping that you can see, Platt, that my statements are not inconsistent
with Pirsig, though conflicting with Jonathan's moral patterns=morals=values
statement. To me, that is saying that the circles are all the same size.
I'm hoping this clarification can help us analyze the our real world problems
better. Abortion is a conflict of the two big circle moral patterns, of
religious patterns and of political patterns. The intellectual patterns try
to create a solution, but it's difficult when the moral circles don't overlap
and the values are miles apart. On the other hand, a problem using cartesian
coordinates vs. polar coordinates is a conflict within the same moral
pattern, have virtually identical moral circles and many similar values.
Am I getting anywhere?
xcto
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]
