"Lithien" wrote on Thu, 14 Jan 1999
> dear thiago:
> i was very happy to hear you say that:
>> the chasm Pirsig was talking about was pretty much the same
>> discussed by Nietszche, the Apolo/Dyonisios division.
> ive said that several times but no one ever said a word about it. i
> saw this very clearly too. im glad to see someone else made the
> same analogy.
> you add:
>> so we get to a very
>> simple and organic statement which is : evil is what harms you.
> wouldnt that render evil relative to who is suffering? surely evil
> is more than that.
.....................................................................
For everyone who has joined the "evil" thread.
As usual I am late. There as been at least two rounds of exchange
since Lithien wrote the above, but.....alas.
What exactly is evil? The most commonly agreed upon phenomenon is
"death" (I know of no culture that values it in a general sense. Old
Egypt is said to have been a "death cult", but that was a belief of
the continuity of existence in a realm beyond). Every other bad
is somehow related to it, be it illness, pain, ageing, suffering,
accidents, famine, war, disasters and thousands of unpleasant
experiences.
There have been many inputs. LITHIEN and PAUL analyzing Joseph
Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" (btw, I have just read his "Lord Jim")
PLATT pointing out the necessity of the opposites; no life without
death... etc, THIAGO's opinion that a tribe in close contact with the
perils of nature will have a simpler evil than an advanced society.
ROGER agreed with PLATT, while DAVID wondered why the group forgot
the most important aspect of the MOQ: the inter-level conflict.
The relativity of "hell" is well known. To the old Nordic mythology
it was ice while it was fire to the Middle Easterners, but never the
less, all had their ultimate evil. I do of course agree with David
about MOQ "explaining" the evil and that's another way of removing
it, once a person sees the meaning (value) of her/his destiny, it
will be accepted - even - gladly. But PLATT's latest input poses a
new riddle: the MOQ is based upon the axiom that there is nothing BUT
value which necessitates the opposite: low value, so to say that evil
is relative is plainly wrong.
This gets rather complicated and I revert to my safe haven: INTELLECT
AS DUALISM. For instance: "Death" is half of the life-death
pair, but has no bearing on the other levels (Jonathan will wince
over this statement, but wait). The Inorganic does not include
life so that goes without saying. Biology knows no ideas, only
sensation. Society (Q-society at least) don't care about individual
wellbeing, it even "values" the means of removing unwanted
individuals permanently. No, only at the Intellect level does death -
as a state - occur.
This sounds as if the evil problem is solved: death is just in our
minds! But no, Q-Intellect (sorry David) is not the mind of SOM,
rather the highest static value. Life and death - all dualities -
are as real as the other static level's values ("realler" even.
Intellect's sway is formidable. Only humans being can be tortured;
without a touch can we be brought to our knees) and yet only the
complete MOQ picture is the full reality. So, here I go again: The
traditionally perceived evils are the various levels seen from
Intellect. We shiver over the endless cold reaches of inorganic
universe; we wince over biology's chasing and killing; we
shudder over war atrocities when the common cause is the only thing
that counts.
These are somehow the values of the lower levels (I even refuse to
put it in quotation marks) without which Intellect couldn't exist.
As Intellect is the highest level it is in its right to condemn
what it sees, yet, only Society is within its reach according to the
MOQ, and it has done a good job in improving Society. A difficult
balance act as Pirsig points out.
Platt's statement that the MOQ itself is based on the good/bad
dichotomy looks like a dilemma that there is no escape from, but the
MOQ. says that all value levels did start on the premises of its
parent, so even if the Quality idea demands a dualism (Intellect) it
is a budding revolt against Intellect; still well within it, but
nursing something that sees good-bad it in an even broader
context.
Bodvar
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 - 16:02:49 BST