From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 16:43:54 BST
Hi David, Platt, et al,
Here's my take on the second quote offered by Platt for my analysis
and opinion.
ANALYSIS OF QUOTE 2
For the purpose of my analysis, I'll divide Quote 2 into three
distinct ideas. Here they are:
Pirsig Idea Q2-1) "An evolutionary morality would at first seem to
say yes, a society has a right to murder people to prevent its own
destruction. A primitive isolated village threatened by brigands has
a moral right and obligation to kill them in self-defense since a
village is a higher form of evolution. "
msh
I'm not sure why a small village is necessarily a higher form of
social evolution than, say, a pirate ship full of brigands. Because
it doesn't move? Because the pirates are bad guys? It's always
wrong to steal? Probably. But certainly debatable. Anyway, I get
and agree with the point; but this sort of statement supports my
contention that Pirsig sees a secondary moral hierarchy at work on
the Social/Cultural level.
A more interesting point here is that the wording of Q2-1,
particularly the words "at first seem to say", strongly implies that
there is a big "BUT" coming. Maybe society does NOT have the right
to murder people. But the quote, as presented, leaves us hanging.
Happily, we can turn to the text in order to complete the thought.
In the book, two tremendously important paragraphs appear
immediately after the the original quote. Here they are, with my
emphasis added:
"When a society is not itself threatened, as in the execution of
individual criminals, the issue becomes more complex. In the
case of treason or insurrection or war a criminal's threat to a
society can be very real. But if an established social structure is
not seriously threatened by a criminal, then an evolutionary morality
would argue that there is no moral justification for killing him.
"What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a
biological organism. He is not even just a defective unit of
society. Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of
thought too. A human being is a collection of ideas, AND THESE IDEAS
TAKE MORAL PRECEDENCE OVER A SOCIETY. Ideas are patterns of value.
They are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of
value. Just as it is more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than a
patient, SO IT IS MORE MORAL FOR AN IDEA TO KILL A SOCIETY THAN IT IS
FOR A SOCIETY TO KILL AN IDEA."
(LILA-13, HB pp 160-161)
msh
So, by expanding the original quote to include the ensuing
paragraphs, we get a dramatically superior depiction of Pirsig's
thought. There's no need for dissection here; I agree with these
ideas completely, with one quibble. People with powerful ideas
critical of an established society will often find themselves at odds
with that society's laws, even to the point of technical criminality.
This is the very essence of civil disobedience, which can be, and
often is, construed as a threat against "an established social
structure." I think that an evolutionary morality would argue that
any action emerging dynamically from the free flow and interaction of
ideas will take moral precedence over a society, no matter how well
established, which is to say "entrenched", the society is.
Pirsig Idea Q2-2) "When the United States drafted troops for the
Civil War everyone knew that innocent people would be murdered. The
North could have permitted the slave states to become independent and
saved hundreds of thousands of lives."
msh
Although I agree with this idea, I should point out that here, and in
idea Q2-3 below, Pirsig is oversimplify the reasons for the Civil War
in order to make his point; at least, I hope the oversimplification
is deliberate. The Civil War was about freeing slaves in the same way
that America's involvement in WWII was about saving Jews. Which is
to say, not much, an ancillary benefit at best.
Like any war, the Civil War was the result of actions taken by
relatively small groups of privileged individuals with conflicting
economic and power interests, within geographically distinct
societies. In comparison to the total populations of their respective
societies, these groups were microscopic in size, yet managed to
accrue, almost always through inordinate wealth, or violence, or the
threat of violence, a vastly disproportionate power over the decision-
making processes of their societies. Once the decision to go to war
is made, it becomes necessary to generate among the population at
large a kind of war fervor, to ensure that bodies will be available
to fight and die. This results in a social environment where
oversimplifications run rampant: We're fighting to free the slaves!
We're fighting to save our homeland, our heritage, our lifestyle!
This sequence of events has occurred countless times throughout human
history, right up to the present instant. Just look around. Sadly,
there's no end in sight.
Anyway, I digress. For anyone who's interested in the actual causes
of the Civil War, I recommend historian Howard Zinn's treatment of
the subject in his book "A People's History of the United States."
For your perusal and verification, and further study, he provides
numerous citations in support of his ideas.
Pirsig Idea Q2-3) "But an evolutionary morality argues that the North
was right in pursuing that war because a nation is a higher form of
evolution than a human body, and the principle of human equality is
an even higher form than a nation. John Brown's truth was never an
abstraction. It still keeps marching on." (Lila, 13)
msh
Nothing much to disagree with here. I'll buy it off the rack. I
particularly like the phrase "the principle of human equality is an
even higher form [of moral evolution] than a nation." I mentioned
this in my previous post. Working within the MOQ, such words become
heavy with meaning: If a nation violates, suppresses, destroys, or
in any other way impedes or diminishes even a single person's chance
for equality with his fellow beings, it is MORALLY IMPERATIVE that
that corrupted nation be destroyed. Tough but true words, I think.
Ok, so that's my take on Quote 2. Analysis of Quote 3 will follow in
a day or two, As always, any and all constructive criticism will be
welcomed.
Thanks to all,
Mark Heyman
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Sun May 09 2004 - 16:41:22 BST