From: Matthew Hails (matthewhails@lineone.net)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 18:20:59 GMT
Hello MOQ list,
I was wondering how thoroughly Mr R.Pirsig intended his stages of static evolution to be a criteria for actually solving *moral* disputes.
With the examples of Victorian values being replaced, etc. I can see how a lot of people would think that evolution is *morally* coherent under Mr R. Pirsig's analysis, and I would agree, EXCEPT FOR BIOLOGICAL as being third place. I was hoping to find some pantheistic flavours in MOQ, but it seems quite un-pantheistic upon first read. (On reflection I'm not sure why I expected it to find any new perspectives on pantheism in Mr R. Pirsig's books. It's a habit of mine to instantly equate 'pagan' religions with pantheism.)
I guess that Mr R. Pirsig must have had a dillema when pondering about whether the four broad patterns that seem to have developed in the wake of evolution could also be used as a *moral* criterion for evolution itself. It all seems instinctively fine when MOQ suggests that intellectual patterns have more inherent value than social ones, and social ones more inherent value than inorganic ones. But the third place one doesn't seem to 'scan right' - from the point of view of little furry animals and oak tress, and stuff.
Maybe I've got Mr R. Pirsig's ideas mis-interpreted. I was kinda hurried when I was reading them. Perhaps these four levels aren't supposed to suggest a *moral* hierachy of values in any exact order, as I have supposed.
Anyway, does anybody have any ideas on how MOQ could be consistent with environmental concerns?
Thanks for listening everybody.
Regards.
Matthew Hails.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 18:03:33 GMT