Hi Platt,
I've given your questions some thought and here are my answers.
Morality exists outside of a social/cultural context?
No. Neither Pirsig nor anyone on this forum has convinced me that substance
is morality. Of course I know part of my problem is getting over the
conventional definition of morality. Even so, I don't see any great
advantage to thinking this way, even on aesthetic grounds.
PIRSIG
Chap. 7: To answer him you have to go all the way back to fundamental
meanings of what is meant by morality and in this culture there aren't
any fundamental meanings of morality. There are only old traditional
social and religious meanings and these don't have any real
intellectual base. They're just traditions. 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.
In this quote Pirsig is simply dogmatic, offering no reasons why we should
think morality and quality are identical.
Chap. 13: What is today conventionally called "morality" covers only one
of these sets of moral codes, the social-biological code. In a subject-
object metaphysics this single social-biological code is considered to
be a minor, "subjective," physically nonexistent part of the universe. But
in the Metaphysics of Quality all these sets of morals, plus another
Dynamic morality, are not only real, they are the whole thing.
Here Pirsig criticizes the conventional meaning of morality for being
limited, based simply on the unjustified claim that it shouldn't be.
We possess a sense of quality that is a genuine perception?
Yes.
People have different ideas about Quality because of different patterns
of life history?
Yes.
Values are a separate category from subjects or objects?
An ambiguous question from either an MOQ or conventional perspective.
PIRSIG
Chap. 5: The reason values seem so woolly-headed to empiricists is
that empiricists keep trying to assign them to subjects or objects. You
can't do it. You get all mixed up because values don't belong to either
group. They are a separate category all their own.
If you believe in MOQ, that's true only of DQ. They're not a separate
category at all if you view subjects and objects as static value patterns.
The world is primarily a moral order?
No. I'm not convinced humans are morals. Humans only sometimes act moral.
Aside from a few other social animals which sometimes exhibit moral
behavior, nothing seems to be made of morals or even act moral. Why think
otherwise?
Everything on earth emerged as the result of ethical activity?
If we treat nature's obeyance of laws of physics as an ethical activity,
then perhaps. Something like Brownian motion, however, suggest totally
random behavior. Also it's hard for me to get around the conventional
meaning of ethical and agree with this wholeheartedly. By the way, why are
you limiting this and the previous question to earth? Pirsig doesn't.
Dynamic Quality is pulling the patterns of life forward to greater levels
of versatility and freedom?
No. I'm not convinced DQ exists.
Everyone runs the same �me� program that doesn�t belong to anyone?
I don't get this, and Pirsig's quote below doesn't help.
PIRSIG
Chap. 15: This Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware
reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are running
variations of the same program, the same "Me," which doesn't belong
to either of them. The "Me's" are simply a program format.
Cells have a special intelligence all their own?
"Special intelligence" leaves a lot of latitude, so I don't know how
to answer.
Morality of the biological world is based on might makes right?
No. I agree with Roger's response to this.
Truth is built by the language of the group?
Unfortunately, this is sometimes the case, such as when the language is
played with and we get truths like "morality=quality=ethics=value=reality".
PIRSIG
Chap. 12: As the atomic physicist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are
suspended in language." Our intellectual description of nature is
always culturally derived.
I don't think this is what Bohr meant. Bohr is describing his trouble
explaining interpretations of QM in a language like english. The trouble
isn't due to nature being culturally derived as much as QM being a wholly
new concept.
More than one set of truths exists?
You mean, on a given question?
High quality truth is empirical, logical, elegant and brief?
Yes.
Communism and socialism are programs for intellectual control of
society?
Yes.
Since the 60�s there has been a drop in intellectual and social quality?
No. Some things got better, and some got worse.
Cooperation without coercion is a devastating fiction?
No. I like Roger's answer here as well.
Reality is understood by every infant?
No, of course not.
So Platt, how would you rate me on your Pirsigian meter?
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
