From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 16:20:32 BST
Hi Wim, Mel,
> Platt asked 12 Aug 2004 12:39:06 -0400:
> 'On the one hand, [Pirsig] says social equality is a good thing. On the
> other, he says it's not a good thing to think that all societies are equal.
> Is this a flip-flop? If not, what's the difference?'
>
> Mel answers 16 Aug 2004 23:17:24 -0600:
> '"Social equality is a good thing" seems to point to WITHIN a society.
> (...as in opportunity) The second point is a comparison between societies.
> (N v S Korea)'
>
> A certain amount of internal equality is necessary to keep societies
> together. Too much internal inequality (compared to inequality between
> societies) motivates people to 'defect': it turns them against 'their'
> (former) society and makes them seek membership of another one that
> promises more internal equality. Islamism happens to be such a society that
> promises more internal equality... A certain amount of equality between
> societies is necessary, because the whole of humanity is more and more
> becoming one society in many respects. Too much global inequality threatens
> people's motivation to seek the good for humanity as a whole and thus
> threatens the quality of our common future.
If I understand you gentlemen correctly, you're saying that (according to
the MOQ) equality is good within a society, that is, among the individuals
who are members of a society. To put it another way, no individual in a
given society ought to be considered better than another. In contrast,
equality is not good between societies, i.e., it's only right and proper
to consider that some societies are better than others. (I gather Wim
demurs on this point.)
My question is: Why does Pirsig flip-flop between individuals and
societies in regards to equality?
In the U.S., medieval class distinctions have been largely eliminated.
Most Americans take it for granted that class wise "I'm just as good as
you are." This is the sense that I got from Pirsig's attribution of the
equality idea to the Indians. The U.S. Constitution also guarantees
certain rights equally to all U.S. citizens--rights designed to prevent
encroachment by government upon the freedoms that are the natural
birthright of every person. Thus, in the eyes of the law, all citizens are
equal.
But, if societies can be judged by their contribution to the evolution of
life, why not individuals? In fact, Pirsig says the MOQ allows for just
such judgments of fellow citizens and that SOM doesn't, to the detriment
of society:
"It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to blame
for the social deterioration of America, because it has undermined the
static social values necessary to prevent deterioration. In its
condemnation of social repression as the enemy of liberty, it has never
come forth with a single moral principle that distinguishes a Galileo
fitting social repression from a common criminal fighting social
repression. It has, as a result, been the champion of both. That's the
root of the problem." (Lila, 24)
It looks to me that Pirsig is of two minds about "equality." It's OK to
appeal to equality when fighting class distinctions and guaranteeing
protections from an authoritarian government, but not OK when comparing
the worth of societies or individuals to the evolution of life.
I look forward to your further comments.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Aug 17 2004 - 16:36:12 BST