Hi Diana, Squad,
I am going to state to opinions which I have expressed before:-
1. Morality is allowing potential (which I identify with DQ) to be
realized to the maximal and BEST extent.
2. The (moral) conflicts WITHIN a level are resolved at a higher level.
The decision who should eat first is a SOCIAL decision. Democracy,
courts and the press use INTELLECTUAL patterns for deciding on SOCIAL
issues.
My second point follows some quotes:-
Diana quoted:-
>From chp 13
>
>"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
>biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
>that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life
[snip]
The other place in Lila where morality is extensively discussed in
Chapter 24, where Pirsig talks about morality in terms of the INTERFACE
between the levels.
>Pirsig talks
>about 5 levels of moral conflict which he gives as:-
>1. Chaos vs. Inorganic patterns
>2. Inorganic vs. Biological
>3. Biological vs. Social
>4. Social vs. Intellectual
>5. static vs. Dynamic
Pirsig thus differentiates between morality which is INTERlevel, and
value patterns which are INTRAlevel. Somehow, I don't think he really
means this.
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST