Hello Marsha. > I think Quality (a 'better' word) is amoral. And rather than > a drive towards "betterness", a drive towards Quality is a drive > towards the amoral, dynamic Quality. Do you disagree with this > statement? I think the Metaphysics of Quality was Pirsig's attempt to ground Quality in a moral framework. My take on morality, according to the MoQ, is that a drive toward betterness evokes behaviors and interactions that are later judged to be moral according to the pre-established framework. When a thing's intrinsic predisposition toward betterness (evolution to a higher level?) is "expressed" the interaction is judged to be moral if it conforms to the MoQ model or it is judged to be immoral if it does not, according to the MoQ, imo. Insofar as he implies that morality is meaningless apart from a pre-established framework, I agree with Pirsig. My views on morality are that it is not possible to engage other people and things effectively without some kind of moral framework. From this point of view I'd say the only things that are amoral are the things we don't engage, interact with, perceive or experience. So for me, you question translates to, is Quality that which defines me and is my source something that I engage, interact with, perceive and experience? Do I need a moral framework to experience Quality? I agree with your statement Marsha.
Kevin --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
