Marty Jorgensen wrote:
> If all he means by morality IS Quality, then why bother using the word at all;
> Quality works fine.
> marty j
>
He's trying to demonstrate how his Metaphysics of Quality is not subversive. He is
saying, literally, that MOQ is moral and ethical, because Quality IS morality. I have
no doubt that Pirsig was condemned for suggesting that each person has an internal
moral compass, and that it may differ from "social norms." His first book came
dangerously close to saying "do your own thing." In his second book, he tries to
explain that "your own thing" is not immoral, but a "higher" type of morality. Then he
makes a mistake-- in that he adds the caveat that it is a higher morality when it is
based upon reason and intellect, and not trumped by some other kind of morality-- like
social norms. This is tame stuff-- Pirsig wouldn't be worth discussing if he actually
meant it. Putting "reason and intellect" at the top of a moral pyramid is a bad idea.
Making "morality" a hierarchy is another bad idea. Both notions have provided us with
well-meaning political systems that have, perhaps inadvertently, unleashed unspeakable
horror upon humanity. Pirsig is valuable, in my opinion, when he doesn't give a damn
about what society says. Answer to yourself alone-- or, as the Existentialist would
put it-- UTTERLY alone. But, as The Upanishads put it-- Two birds sit in a tree. One
is answering to itself. The other looks on.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST