Hi Platt,
let me firstly say that I don't feel particularly comfortable before this kind
of questions. The problem is that often what is a moral act is not very clear,
like in the example of the Brujo:
"The story was of a struggle between good and evil, but the koan it raised was,
"Which was which?" Was this person really good or was he perhaps ALSO evil? "
(Lila, ch. 9)
I've emphasized that ALSO as IMO it is important in the MOQ that what seems
moral could be often "a degeneracy of another sort" if brought up to the
extreme consequences. I use to be watchful about this sort of "high morality in
pills". I think these short sentences cut many things off... there are a lot of
"IFs" to add...
> A. It is immoral to make a movie out of a metaphysics, and
> presumably, any work that is primarily an intellectual pattern of value.
> From this I assume it was immoral to make *The Fountainhead*
> starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal.
I don't agree with your interpretation. P. was afraid to sell his metaphysics to
the market. It is immoral to sell an intellectual pattern to someone interested
ONLY to make money out of your insights (by means of a movie or whatever else),
as probably will arrange things without much respect for your ideas. I think
that it would be not the case if the director or producer of the movie was P.
himself, or, at least, if he could have the last word. A movie can well be a
form of art, just like a book, and a good carrier of intellectual patterns.
Actually, P. seems to suggest Woody Allen.... and IMO not only joking.
On the other hand, it's not always bad to sell ideas to the market, if it's your
job and you need a job to survive in our society.
> B. It is immoral for a society to restrain truth for its own purposes. From
> this I assume all the democrats and their sycophants in the press who
> restrained the truth about Kennedy's sexual escapades acted
> immorally.
Truth is an intellectual pattern of value. Of course society restrains truth for
its own purposes (and it's immoral), as, at the social level, truth has no
sense. Both governments and private firms (think of the tobaccos firms!) use to
hide truth: they are not very glad when public opinion is too informed of their
disasters. But of course there are situations in which the national security
needs secrets. Wasn't it right to keep the D-Day hidden?
About Kennedy's sexual escapades (and Clinton's and whoever else), I think it is
also a nonsense to judge a president according to his sexual life. Sadly public
opinion does it (immorally, I'd say, as sexual escapades are individual
business, and don't harm the society), so I understand (even if I don't fully
approve) a president who tries to hide his personal life to defend his own
social position. I find equally immoral the scandal-mongering attitude of many
media nowadays....
> C. It is immoral for children to be dominated by their parents. From this
> I assume disciplining a child is immoral.
Teaching is not dominating. Your assumption is IMO not correct: discipline can
have many aspects and paths. IMO the goal should be to make children able to
walk on their feet, as soon as possible. No domination... but laxness is a
degeneracy of another sort.
> D. It is immoral to speak against a people because of their genetic
> characteristics. From this I assume one should not speak ill of another
> solely on the basis of his skin color.
> E. It is NOT immoral to speak against a person because of his cultural
> characteristics if those cultural characteristics are immoral. From this I
> assume one is right to speak out against member of a ghetto gang no
> matter the individual's ethnic background.
I agree both on D and E. I offer a quote from the Rory Fitzgerald's essay
available in the forum (www.moq.org/forum/rory.html) :
" The recent accusations of the UK police force of institutionalized racism were
essentially a reaction to the fact that the police force is more geared to
tackling crime in black areas (as blacks are on average ten times more likely to
commit crime.) However the police are merely rationally reacting to an
identifiable pattern of biological crime, which is moral as society must
dominate biology. Thus this is moral unless the police in the process victimize
innocent black individuals on the basis of this societal statistical perception.
This would be immoral as it is a case of societal patterns of value infringing
on the intellectual ideals of freedom and equality ".
It is IMO clear that the matter is very delicate. The borderline between a right
application of a statistical fact (immigrants are more easily involved in
crimes) and racism (immigrants are criminal) is thin.
> F. It is immoral to put philosophy in the service of any social
> organization or dogma. From this I assume it was immoral for
> America's founding fathers to draw upon English philosophers for their
> Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I don't agree. To apply an intellectual pattern on a social organization is
moral... ("as long as the static patterns go"). The founding fathers were
intellectuals in that job, not merely socially focused persons . The immorality
is when you build a philosophy to merely justify your governor, eventually even
against your own convictions.
> G. It is immoral for truth to be subordinated to social values. From this
> Pirsig concludes that the practicality test of truth of William James is
> not only immoral, but dangerous.
> H. It is immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic
> Quality. From this I assume that Kuhn, Feyerabend and other modern
> philosophers of science are correct in saying that scientific truth, like
> moral truth, is relative.
Are you equating truth and DQ?
Truth is a kind of value, so you can't decide what's good only in the name of
truth . Even Pirsig says that there are competitive truths. IMO the scientific
truth is a myth; it's scientism, not science. The same goes for "moral truth".
It sounds like a religious truth... not very dynamic.
> I. It is immoral for sane people to force cultural conformity by
> suppressing the Dynamic drives that produce insanity. From this I
> assume the MOQ approves of legalizing drugs.
hmmm... it is not IMO correct to equalize insanity with DQ. Of course if you are
DQ focused, they will tell you are mad. On the contrary, there's no evidence
that all the insane are DQ focused. So, let's respect the insane, but let's
keep watchful.
About drugs, it is IMO moral to legalize them, as it is an individual right. But
it is immoral to overuse them, as it is, in the end, an individual right to
biological value... Of course, I drink red wine, as to force myself to a
complete abstinence from alcohol would be a degeneracy of another sort, as red
wine has a good social value in my culture.
> J. It is immoral to commit suicide.
Agree. But I think that euthanasia is an individual right.
> K. It is immoral to "karma dump" on an invented devil group like Jews,
> blacks, whites, capitalists, communists, etc. From this I assume Hillary
> Clinton was immoral to blame right wing extremists for her husband's
> infidelity.
hmmm.... see above. I think that it is immoral to blame a president of conjugal
infidelity. And anyway, even Hillary Clinton can have opinions and blame those
against her. If those extremists were talking as *exponents* of a group, well,
it is correct to blame the group. Otherwise, it should be right to blame the
individuals, respecting their opinions.
> L. It is immoral to create a metaphysics. From this I assume Pirsig's
> excuse, *Ahh, do it anyway* is the same excuse he uses when he
> enjoys a fat, juicy steak.
This point about the creation of a metaphysics has always sounded strange to me.
To create a metaphysics is an intellectual activity. It is sQ creation. If it is
immoral to create sQ, well, the whole world is immoral. Anyway, it is here that
P. talks of a "degeneracy of another sort", so no problems. Actually, the MOQ
is fairly moral as it leaves the half world undefined, so in the end it analyzes
only the static half.
> In case anyone is interested, I object to A, C, F, H, I and L and wonder
> if others, like me, can't buy Pirsig's moral sanctions completely.
What I really object to, and don't buy, are many of your interpretations. I
don't find problems with Pirsig statements... I find problems with a "dogmatic"
use of moral statements. A moral statement should be used not as definitive
answer, but as a guide. When I have steak and red wine, a moral alarm sounds.
It's on me to decide how many alarms my conscience can bear. A life without
alarms is IMO a degeneracy of another sort.
Bye
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:25 BST