From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 14:52:27 GMT
Hi Kevin
> Glenn said (and might be joking):
>
> "Is something developed later in time always better? Yes
>
> "Or is complexity the thing?" Yes
>
> "Are the more complex things necessarily better?" Yes
>
> Kevin:
> Herein lies my greatest apprehension about a formal, systematic
> metaphysics based on LILA. At least as it is interpreted by many
> MOQ'ers. It came up once before in a discussion with Platt where it was
> stated unequivocally that what comes later (temporally) is better because
> DQ always moves towards "Good".
> Like Rudy, I also cannot fathom how this "betterness" or "goodness"
> isn't just subjective coloring of circumstances to support a specific
> frame of reference. It's POV-centric.
First, DQ always moves towards "Good" defined as greater levels of
freedom and versatility. This doesn't mean that new developments or
more complexity are always better.
Secondly, the MoQ presents a rational frame of reference or POV for
determining betterness, goodness, right and wrong. You can adopt or
reject it as you wish since every metaphysics, like every thought, is
POV-centric. (I presume POV means Point of View, not Pattern of
Value.)
In essence, Pirsig claims evolution is driven not by chance and
necessity but by a creative force for good called Dynamic quality. In it's
wake have been left four levels of moral value, each later level better
than the former: life (biological level ) better than death (inorganic level);
human law (social level) better than jungle law (biological level);
individual human rights (intellectual level) better than all lower levels. The
explanatory power of this POV (metaphysics) is demonstrated in "Lila."
To believe that betterness or goodness is "just subjective" reflects the
prevailing POV of moral relativity which Pirsig blames for "social
catastrophe" whereby the biological forces of sex, drugs, crime and
tyranny gain the upper hand. With no way to say why these forces are
wrong (since it all depends on personal, subjective POVs), society
becomes paralyzed, unable to act in its own defense, like a "spider
waiting while the wasp gets ready to attack it."
My POV-centric view is that Pirsig offers a better solution to the
problems that confront humanity than the "anything goes" POV-centric
view of moral relativists.
But, I could be wrong. (-:
Platt
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 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 14:53:27 GMT