Hi Wim,
An excellent post. I actually wrote something about how difficult it is to
act morally, given the bias inherent in all our sources of knowledge such as
the media, and our inability to research even a few issues adequately, but I
chose not to post it as it seemed rather bleak and negative. I enjoy your
refreshing honesty about bias, which I relate to. But most of all, I think
you have put your finger on the one difference that the MOQ (perhaps)
offers, that is, our own immediate sense of quality or value. As you said
"The only really original and indisputable source is DQ, the cutting edge of
the experience of the people involved."
I also liked your first four points for progress, viz
- Israeli citizens supporting Palestinian victims of oppression,
- Palestinians supporting Jewish victims of terrorist acts,
- Israeli soldiers refusing to serve in the occupied territories,
- massive foreign aid in order to rebuild Palestinian social structures
Though you completely lost me with your others, especially
- measures stimulating the export of Palestinian products in which
Palestinians and Jews have both had a minimum input of labor
Can you explain?
Your first three points above suggest to me that the MOQ actually points to
an individual morality, based upon quality. Political change will only occur
when enough individuals take costly action in support of their moral sense
of quality. In this sense it seems to me that much of the discussion in this
forum has been coming from a low and rather cost free moral level. Also, I
am inclined to see suicide bombers not as terrorists but as (misguided)
individuals acting out of what is to them a moral imperative. I really
appreciate your timely reminder that each individual caught up in this
conflict is due equal respect. Hear, hear.
So this brings us again to the holarchic structure of morality that Wilber
espouses. The reason one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist is
not solely due to bias and self interest, though often that seems to be
about all it is, but it also relates to the moral level of the commitment. A
Bonhoeffer who decides to take up arms (at least metaphorically) against
Hitler is coming from a totally different moral level than some thug picking
on a member of an 'out' group, be it defined racially, sexually, or however.
The MOQ should support the value of the objector to the war in Vietnam, for
example, who is prepared to risk unpopularity, possible imprisonment, and so
on, because he finds the thought of murdering Vietnamese of extremely low
quality. [I'll become a bit more optimistic about humankind when I see
street marches honouring those who had the brains and the guts to oppose the
war, rather than our current social level glorification of those who went
off to kill.]
But Pirsig cannot discriminate the saviours from the degenerates. This is
where Wilber has much to offer. He makes clear the moral spectrum that gives
us a reason for favouring one person's values over another's. Otherwise the
MOQ collapses into "It feels right, therefore I'll do it". In a sense this
is the ultimate MOQ position, except that intellectual values are supposedly
superior to social values. But a Nazi who believes in Nazism for its
undoubted eugenic superiority over other ideologies is still a Nazi. The
idea that we all know quality when we meet it is the root of Pirsig's error.
The intellect can support awful outcomes, just as can the social level
values.
What Wilber points to is a more complex reality. Moral issues are not simply
debated in terms of intellect versus society, but a complex developmental
sequence, in which individuals move through increasingly more moral stages.
Quality at one stage is not the same as, or somehow equivalent to, quality
at another. This is where the knee-jerk postmodern response that all
hierarchy is oppressive is so wide of the mark. (Sorry, Erin). Which is why
I hope our postmodern friends will rapidly encounter those aspects of
reality that force them to move on to a higher level of moral assessment. In
terms of Pirsig's wisdom, I agree with those who saw ZMM as the more 'moral'
book. It allows for growth and change, and even working on the motorcycle
called ourselves, while Lila, despite its supposed foundation in undefinable
dynamic quality, is mostly about the conflicts between static levels. It has
some of the fundamental elements of a truly adequate morality, but its
ignorance of human development is fatal.
Thanks again for a most stimulating post.
Regards,
John B
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 - 16:02:14 BST