Hey Bo,
I want to start by saying that I've been a little bothered the fact that
this thread is running mainly under the heading "Science or Emotivism?"
because I feel as though it misdirects the thrust of the topic. The main
question should be more like, "How can we discern the respective level for
any individual pattern?" The idea of science/emotivism doesn't come into
play until we start speculating on the consequences of asking this initial
question. If one proposes a straight answer to this question (i.e. 3WDave's
ideas about Ken WIlbur) then science/emotivism never becomes an issue.
However, if one tries to sidestep the problem, or dissolve the question
(Moo) then we have problems. The problem that arises is that if we can't
"seperate" the components of an actual moral dilemma into their respective
levels with some degree of accuracy, then anyone even remotely skilled in
argument can use the MoQ to justify both sides of almost any moral question.
Pirsig's claim that the MoQ facilitates greater precision in moral reasoning
therefore becomes hollow
>
YOU WROTE:
> I wish Rick would provide examples of these difficulties.
RICK:
Sometimes I feel like the examples of moral interpretations used in LILA
(doctor/germ, hindu/cow) seem so persuasive because the MoQ was designed to
justify the examples and not vice versa... maybe not, but it makes you
think. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that you don't see ambiguity in
breaking down actual moral situations with the levels. For now, I offer you
this snippet from Diana's wonderful "Giraffes and stuff" post:
DIANA:
"It's been discussed at great length, but I've yet to see anyone
post a really foolproof argument based on Pirsig's hierarchy. There are
always too many ifs and buts, and we are always hindered by the lack of
complete knowledge of facts in any situation. For example destroying a
source of thought may be wrong, but the money and resources used to keep a
murderer alive could alternatively be used to save the lives of other
people, who are also sources of thought. Also, we seem better at judging
historical issues such as the holocaust, rather than the sort of things that
we ourselves have to face - like my mother's horror at my piercings and
tattoos."
BO:
I would say that every level claims everything there is - Intellect's no
exception to the rule. Yes, isn't the Intellect-focus the very source of the
said difficulties? People not able to let go of the MIND-INTELLECT and
accept the static-value-intellect. The world is "intellectual" when focus is
at Intellect, but when it shifts the world may become Social-Emotional or
Biological- Sensational (or even Inorganic!!). My idea is that the MOQ is
some shift upwards towards a still higher perspective. Such a one must
necessarily be a probing 5th level, but as not to become magnanimous let's
just call it a "movement" to free itself from its
last latch.
RICK:
As you know, I'm very familiar with your thoughts on the Intellectual level.
However, I'm not sure how the "Intellect-foucs" is the source of the
difficulties we're discussing this month and so I don't see how this helps;
perhaps you'd care to elaborate a bit.
BO:
"The problem-solving follows automatically after the metaphysics in my
opinion."
RICK:
Yes, I agree that the MoQ's claims to increased precision in moral reasoning
are supposed to come as direct result of it's new metaphysical
interpretation of reality.
BO:
You know, anything can be endured if you know its MEANING. A bad feeling is
bad only until you know its source; a good diagnosis is a cure in itself.
RICK:
Maybe, sometimes... but I can think of thousands of problems where knowledge
of it's source and meaning provide very little comfort. I doubt you really
need me to provide examples of such situations.
BO:
> I don't think even Pirsig would know the exact level for things and
phenomena because there are no such. It's turning the MOQ back into SOM:
These (objective) things and phenomena, where do they fit this (subjective)
theory of Pirsig's? No, better look to Magnus' space-dimensional analogue
where everything has a position vector. Everything has one or more value
vectors.
RICK:
I'm not quite sure about these "multiple-level" interpretations yet...
Pirsig's examples with the patient/germ and hindus/cows seem to be
convincing evidence for
his belief that individual patterns belong to individual levels
On a related topic, I have started putting together a website on which I
will attempt to begin the project I described in the post "Working
Backwards...." I'm very much hoping I can count on your help when it gets
going. It's the first step in the direction of MoQ evolution, a step I
believe that you have been waiting to take.
all Good,
Rick
It is easier to fight for one's principles
than to live up to them.
- Alfred Adler
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST