Hi All
RICHARD BUDD:
In LILA (chapter 12) Pirsig writes:
"If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics- Inorganic, Biological,
Social, and Intellectual- nothing is left out. No "thing," that is. Only
Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent."
However, without the "encyclopedia" Pirsig speculates over in the above
quote, assigning specific patterns to one of the various levels is often
nothing more than a guessing game. In some cases, two levels may appear to
lay claim to the same pattern. And often a given moral situation seems to
allow for various interpretations of how the levels may be applied. This
problem often creates a "post-hoc MoQ" in which the levels are applied only
to justify some preordained conclusion.
HORSE:
Ethical theories come in all shapes and sizes. As far as I'm aware there is no ethical
theory
that is capable of giving definitive answers to all possible moral questions and I
don't see
why the MoQ is deemed any less valid because it is less than perfect. Ethics isn't an
objective science (if such a thing exists) but a participative process like many other
activities. And like many other activities it is also contextual. What may seem
correct given
one set of circumstances may appear incorrect with a small variation in
context/perspective.
Moral judgements aren't absolutes - even within the MoQ. This doesn't mean that firm
conclusions cannot be reached regarding goodness or morality - just that the answer
reached is not set in stone for all time.
RICHARD BUDD:
If one grants to the MoQ everything it claims for itself it should function
as both a metaphysical description of reality and framework for deducing the
"solutions" to problems of value and morality.
HORSE:
General ethical theories provide broad answers to general areas of moral concern
(Metaethics) - is abortion morally justified, is capital punishment justified etc. The
application
of the theory may then be attached to specific areas in order ascertain their validity
(Normative Ethics). In this way most ethical systems can be seen as "post hoc". MoQ,
in
terms of metaethics and application, for me, provides for a better means of reaching
moral
judgement and, more importantly, asking the questions.
RICHARD BUDD:
LILA gives us plenty of information on how the levels (and DQ) should
interact with each other but its descriptions of the contents of each
respective level are at best vague.
HORSE:
Which is why MOQ.ORG exists and why we participate in these discussions. The MoQ
wasn't a fully formed ethical theory when Lila was published - just the initial
outline. Lila isn't
the Bible and shouldn't be treated as such!
RICHARD BUDD:
Most importantly, the MoQ doesn't even claim to give a method of "deducing"
what patterns fit where. But, without this ability the MoQ can never fulfill
either of its two primary functions.. After all, the MoQ can have no value
in moral or metaphysical thought if the thinker must always check with
Robert M. Pirsig to know if he's correctly applying the levels.
HORSE:
!!!!!!!
RICHARD BUDD:
I propose that this month we scan LILA for clues and share our ideas on
whether assigning patterns to levels is an 'art' or a 'science'. and if
there's no such 'science', does this leave the MoQ open to charges of being
nothing but an elaborately veiled emotivism?
Assigning patterns to levels is neither an art nor a science - it is an ongoing
participative
process. Something to keep firmly fixed in mind whilst thinking about catagories and
levels
and pigeonholing etc. is that Dynamic Quality - which is present in all levels - is of
greater
good than static value, which is merely moral.
As there seems to be an amount of confusion over what is meant by 'Emotivism', I've
also
supplied an excellent essay/critique on Emotivism in a seperate post. I can't for the
life of
me remember where it came from or who wrote it.
Horse
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
