In response to your comment that the MOQ does not say it is immoral to watch
people suffer I must differ. First off, the whole situation that got Pirsig
going on his quest for the MOQ was an indefinable Quality he was reading in
some of his student's essays. Sitting by and watching someone suffer just
plain feels bad. I defy any rational person to be exposed to a person or
persons suffering and not be effected.
But this aside, I will cite Pirsig's argument against capital punishment as
support for my point that it is immoral to allow people to suffer -
especially if you can do something to alleviate that suffering. (Note: I
have replaced Pirsig's use of the word "criminal" with "person" and
"punishment" with "suffering". The point of the passage is preserved)
But if an established social strucdture is not seriously
threatened
by a [person], then an evolutionary morality would argue that
there
is no moral justification for [him suffering]. What makes
[him suffering]
immoral is that a [person] is not just a biological
organism.... Whenever
you kill a human being your 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.
Lila, pg. 184-185
Therefore, (and this goes back to an earlier discussion we had Platt) it is
of great social quality to promote the dynamic development of an individual.
Foremost is helping alleviate someone's suffering, so they may promote their
own dynamic potential - or operate at a higher level within MOQ static
patterns. Just because we cannot eliminate suffering all together doesn't
mean we shouldn't attempt to relieve some suffering. By that rational it
could be argued that taking a shower is unnecessary because we'll just get
dirty again anyway. Or why eat to eliminate our hunger pain (suffering)?
We'll just be hungry again later. It's because eating, showering, whatever;
frees us to operate at a higher static level.
I would also point out Pirsig's use of the word "moral" in the above passage.
Therefore, to say that MOQ is built on a rational structure - and imply
that it doesn't function as a moral guide - is false. Indeed, I would argue
that that is it's main function. To operate as a moral guide to us who are
operating under the SOM, which is devoid of any moral guidance what-so-ever.
Lastly, I would say that Pirsig WAS participating in eliminating others
suffering - even though he was sailing alone down the Hudson. He was
engaging in an intellectual effort to find a better metaphysics from which we
all can operate. A way to alleviate his and others suffering that was
imposed by the limitations of the SOM. By being on that boat (I would argue
that it wasn't a "yacht," and it sounded like he was far from "comfortable")
he was tackling suffering on the highest static level there is - an
ideological/intellectual one.
Platt, what you call a "moral code of sacrifice" I call a "moral code of
development." And you cannot deny that dynamic development of self and
others has roots in MOQ.
Jack
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]
