LS Re: Morality and DQ


Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:27:41 +0100


Hi Squad, Sojourner, Horse, Diana,

SOJOURNER wrote:
>Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
>>...In 1939, Gandhi,
>>true to his absolute pacifist stance, condemned the declaration of war
>>against Hitler's Germany. I don't question Gandhi's moral integrity,
but
>>I disagree with his moral choice on this issue. IMO opinion violent
>>intervention against Hitler was justified to prevent much greater evil
>>in the long term.

>Let's imagine all other countries, not just Gandhi followers, decided
>to be pacifist when Hitler waged his war. Seems like Nazi-ism would've
>run over Europe effortlessly and we'd all be Third Reichers or else
>dead right? hahaha not if the populace was pacifist too, and opposed
>to his form of socialism....
Possibly, but this wasn't true of the German populace. An alternative
possibly is that a Nazi world order would ultimately evolve into
something less evil (as has happened to other empires). Maybe this
latter scenario can even be considered inevitable - the good ultimately
prevails. But I still consider it was moral to attempt to avert the Nazi
"aberration", which was not inevitable.

HORSE:-
>The point I was making was that, according to Pirsig, DQ is of the
>highest value - higher than IntPoV - and as such where Intellect
>attempts to deliberately suppress DQ, __for its own purposes__ ,
>then this is apparently immoral. (In some ways I agree - as with the
>issue of censorship and intellectual rights - see my posts to Platt).
>
>This raises some interesting issues within the value as morality
>debate. If DQ is of higher value than SQ, then is a Quality Event
>(DQ) at the level of Social patterns of higher value (morality) than
>SQ at the Intellectual level.

I believe it incorrect to talk about DQ at a particular level. Rather,
we are talking about manifestations of DQ which are themselves SQ.
However, I still think there is a problem. If suppression of DQ is
immoral, then how can "static latching" have any moral value? This is a
consequence of regarding DQ as freedom and SQ as order. I thus reject
any definition of SQ vs. DQ based on this. Furthermore, I would suggest
that DQ *cannot* be supressed or altered by SQ. ...

Just this instant a very clear thought came to me. What SOM is after is
just this. The "objective" observer must not alter the object - can only
observe. We know this "ideal" to be highly problematic. MoQ may have
achieved this ideal in a different way. DQ is fundamental - cannot be
changed or altered. The only thing that is variable is *how* DQ is
interpreted in SQ.

Thus Pirsig's talking about DQ having "morality" which superceeds SQ
morailty, could be a throw-away line.

DIANA writes:-
[snip]
>What Pirsig adds to this is a moral structure, namely that DQ is the
>highest moral value. The Hinudus say this too, but unlike the Hindus,
he
>insists that SQ is moral too and defines four levels of it.
>
>And, as you pointed out, he shows how DQ is a part of everyday life
>which is something that both the Hindus and the Western scientific
>realityists miss.

As Diana so rightly pointed out, SQ is the same as Hinduism's "Maya".
Both are a product of DQ, (Hinduism's Lila, the "play" of Brahman).
But Maya is illusion - false reality. The "true" reality is to be
achieved in mysticism.
The objective reality of the Greeks is also not the absolute (the
"true"), but a good approximation of it achieved by observation and
rational thought.
Pirsig differs from both. He makes no reference to an abstract absolute.
The reality we know is SQ. We build it by experiencing DQ. Here I think
I can find the place for DQ-morality. We are (morally) obliged to be
receptive to DQ - to take account of every experience we can. To ignore
experience is "denial" and leads to immorality. (Good example - Nazi
science).

Jonathan

--
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 - 16:43:29 CEST