Hi Jonathan and Squad
You wrote:
> Why do I feel that Horse "prejudges" my post of 7th Dec where I first
> suggested that Intellect didn't really fit AS A LEVEL.
> In that post, I claimed that what we and Pirsig have been calling
> Intellectual Values might more conveniently be called Social
> Values e.g.
> MAGNUS says
> >Intellectual Quality Events of a country on the other hand
> >are usually called elections...
> I think that we can equally well call elections a "social event".
Yes. But we can also call it biological because our society uses
its senses, voting booths, to make the decision. And we can also
call it inorganic because our votes are written on papers in
envelopes. Dependency, dependency, dependency...
I don't know if you just think I'm kidding or pulling your leg
with these examples. You don't seem to take them seriously anyway.
I'm not kidding! I'm dead serious.
> HORSE:-
> >As far as I'm aware the MoQ is based upon 4 levels of value.
> Pirsig DOES say this, but he also confuses it by talking about 5 types
> of morality.
> Magnus and Bo lose the concept of levels altogether by going off into
> new dimensions.
Lose, clarify, whatever. The dimension approach is the only way I see
that makes sense out of the reality I perceive. And there's nothing in
Lila that contradicts it.
> I call it for what it is. Unfortunately, it is not up to me personally
> to determine society's values.
> But I know what *I* consider right and good. One thing I
> *know* is that
> movements which have *claimed* to place intellect and logic first have
> been responsible for some of the most immoral behaviour known to man.
Jonathan, I know that you have serious doubts about intellect being
more moral than society. I believe your reasons are that the model
you have of intellect and the rest of the levels are simply not
compatible with your moral codes. So, you let go of the equation
reality=morality and puts human morality first.
I think this is what Pirsig means with "Rigel-morality". Rigel-
moralists can preach about what is moral without facing the
consequences in reality. They can say things like "Humans are
the most valuable creature", without thinking about how we got
to be most valuable. For example, what do you think happened to
our nearest predecessors? Do you think they just died silently?
I think not, I think they got butchered without mercy because
they occupied the same place in the food chain. Homo sapiens
killed the other race because they could, and it was moral.
It was moral because they could, and they could because it was
moral. Morality = Reality. I doubt the same Rigel-moralist
would claim this event to be moral.
But it goes deeper than that, it also means that every event
in every level happens because it is moral. If I drop my coffee
cup, it will fall to the floor. It falls because a world in which
it falls is more moral than a world in which it doesn't, or a world
in which it sometimes falls and sometimes not. I'm not kidding now
either when I say that every such event in every level affects
what most people call morality.
What I'm trying to say is that we *do* have quite legitimate reasons
for questioning certain moral issues. We're trying to keep our view
of reality consistent, because reality *is* consistent, otherwise it
would sometimes dead lock and freeze like a Microcrap program. I wish
you'd think about that the next time you scorn me, Bo or anyone else
for having another opinion about something. If you respect us putting
the morality=reality equation before anything else, I promise to
respect you putting humanity on the front row.
Magnus
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 - 16:02:43 BST