OLD BO COMES DOWN FROM THE MOUNT IN A RIGHTEOUS STYLE
AND REPEATS THE MOQ FUNDAMENTALS AS THEY APPLY TO THE
ETHICS DEBATE....IN HIS NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION.
John, Mark and the rest of the disciples.
I read all of your piece with great interest, but will only focus on
the closing paragraph where you wrote:
> If anyone is still with me, and can ignore the dated syle of all this, and the
> SOM jargon, I think it has value in mapping the terrain of morality, and is
> really helpful in clarifying how superficially moral choices become immoral
> when taken, for example, as ends in themselves. In this sense a Hitler
> emerges as the result of choices that focus on perceived 'goods' which
> are too narrowly defined (the good of the Aryan race) and lose sight of
> justice and the larger good....snip
It is rude of me to go so lightly over so much good and well-written
material and I hope you'll forgive me, but I think we should center
upon what sets Pirsig's metaphysics apart from everything before it
and then look to its ethical implications. Even your "totum bonum"
falls short of its scope.
The first axiom of the MOQ (that there are nothing BUT morals)
can hardly be a guide for our daily actions. The next (the hierarchy
of static moral) is more helpful as it gives a credible explanation
to many paradoxes, but is still a little unhelpful as an "ethics" in
an Aristotelian and Kantian sense.
My position is that MOQ is too general to be used directly. It's like
using General Relativity or Quantum Physics for calculating a space
orbit; it can be used (it is said) but is way too cumbersome,
Newton's physics is accurate enough. In other words: we may in fact
use the "ordinary" ethics, only now with the MoQ as the table that
everything is written on.
There is in fact a moral for each static level and an "ethics" for
the interface between them. The moral IS the level so it can almost
be forgotten. Molecules don't OBEY inorganic rules; they ARE the
inorganic rules themselves, and as this is the physical universe
itself it's immensely old and rigid. The next moral level is also
pretty old and the code between them "settled" eons ago; no-one
questions the value of Life over Death.
The same goes for Social morals and it's interface with Biology. For
me this level has it's roots in biology before mankind and still
applies to animal colonies/packs etc, an important point when
understanding how basic the social values are, and that we often mix
Intellectual values into this level when discussing the human
societies. The code between social and biological values is settled
too. No-one denies the advantage of law and order.
It is the Intellectual level and its cohabitation with Society that
is - and have been - the problem for as long as history goes. Armed
with the MOQ as a General Morals we may see that an Aristotelian
or Kantian ethics is accurate enough.....if we don't make the mistake
of the various religions/ churches that have made social values their
case and fight (a hopeless struggle) with Intellect....or the mistake
of (what should I call it: eggheads??) that social values are
all bigotry and better be abandoned.
Now I have stressed the month's topic grandly, but morals in the
ethics form have always given me a suffocating feeling. Long, long
before Pirsig - when little - I found "commandments" of all kind
hopelessly related to the the times when they were formulated. How
could anyone believe in the myth of it being delivered from God
or eternally valid? Even the foundation for the various "lay" ethics
were dubious - because of the "subjectivity" as Pirsig points out.
That's why the MOQ was such a revelation. For once something that
made sense!
Finally for MARK who wrote:
.
> Hmmm. Iım not sure what you mean by "total value range." Do you mean that
> within any total value range, there will be values that support any action,
> even contradictory actions? Or do you mean that we can never go against
> what is right when we look at the totality of our values ranked
> appropriately?
Well, I sort of meant all the moral levels as explained above. Even
if I have argued that it is the Social/Intellect code that counts,
the other levels' interplay can't be all disregarded. I have - while
writing this - been trying to find an example in a situation that
would demonstrate my point. Before the month is over I hope to come
up with a good specimen. In the meantime I agree with what you write
here:
> I think we can go against what is right (in its totality) by focusing on
> one level or one code between levels. I agree that we never pick an outcome
> that we do not value within at least one such focus. This makes sense right
> off the bat because the levels are often in opposition to one another. Good
> for the social level is not often good for the biological level. If you
> look at biological, it is ok to yawn. If you look at the social, it is not.
> It is almost as if you can always find a level that will agree with
> whatever you wish to do. Such is the art of justification.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:45 GMT