Theo Schramm (theoschramm@hotmail.com)
Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:27:02 +0100
Greetings,
KEN:
> "Morality is the operation of Quality within the available range of
>possibilities. We could say that Morality is the static hang-ups that
>impede the flow of entropy toward complete randomness. Morality is >any
ompatible Static hang-up that lengthens the life of the universe.
<If we now shift forward some 14 point something billion years we
<introduce humanity into the picture. It should be obvious that prior
<to the last hundred years or so the view of morality taken by the
>human race was solely concerned with what was immediately good for >the
human race. I would venture to say that even now the vast >majority of
the human race takes this view.
I have to disagree here. I think human morality has been much more
concerned with what was good for individual humans in the perceived
'next world' and much less to do with immediate benefit to the race as a
whole. In addition I believe that most traditional religions have placed
a high premium upon the natural world (sun worship, mountain worship
etc)to the extent that what is 'good' for mankind has been that which is
'good' for the planet. It is only in recent times that mankind has
(almost)actively sought to mess up the planet. Of course if you are
meaning the universe as a whole then you are probably right that there
is a greater distinction so I won't try and argue this too far.
< In this view the Morality of the physical universe is not in all, or
<maybe most, cases compatible with the perceived Morality of the human
<race. And, of course, the Morality of the human race raises many
<questions which are of no concern to the Morality of the universe. <It
is for this reason that I think that the two questions should be
<considered separately. I think this is the cause of most of the
<ambiguity surrounding the question of Morality. Regarding <Possibility
as the bedrock source of Dynamic Quality, in my view, <eliminates the
ambiguity surrounding this term. Pirsig, himself, <leaves this question
up in the air and surrounded by much <puzzlement.
<To sum up:
< Dynamic Quality is the complete (and changing) range of
<possibilities presented by the physical organization of the universe.
< Static Quality is that portion of this range of possibilities which
<are latched and which generally tend to lengthen the life of the
<physical universe.
< Cool (human) Static Quality is perceived individually and is those
<conditions which we (individually) perceive to be of value. The
<ManyTruthsidea."
I worry very much about splitting human morality from universal morality
as it seems to inevitably lead to the conclusion you come to. Namely
that it is an individually perceived phenomena and that OUR value is
therefore - dare I say it? - subjective.
This area is one of the major stumbling blocks of Pirsig's philosophy
and his ethical examples in Lila leave a great deal to be desired. For
me at least, the great attraction of Pirsig's work is the promise of an
affirmation of a consistent, non-subjective morality covering all
'reality.'If I am unable to find such a unified ethic then the MoQ would
seem of decidedly poor value itself. I have been waiting for this to
come up as a subject for some and am glad Diana and Ken have introduced
it now as I hope others can help me on this point. For now, I have no
answers.
Theo
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST