Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:40:38 +0100
Hi Ken, Diana and LS:
Ken wrote:
> Here is where I need some help. I t seems to me that the two thrusts
> toward higher morality are different. Non-sentient morality will be
> whatever is in accordance with the proper functioning and growth of
> information content of the universe. Sentient morality will also be that
> but with the addition of the perceived advance of morality being
> influenced by sentience. In other words, I can see where the two
> morality thrusts may diverge from time to time because we may not have
> enough information of judge what is the higher morality in a given
> situation. Are there properly two definitions of morality or should we
> discard non-sentient morality and just focus on sentient morality or
> should I just assume that we will be intelligent enough to always see
> when there is a conflict between us and the universe? I get no guidance
> from Pirsig even though he gives examples from both cases. Any thoughts
> on this anybody or should I just shut up and concentrate on my own
> individual morality? Maybe immorality would be more fun. I am genuinely
> puzzled by what I perceive to be a conflict. I hope this makes sense. It
> does to me.
By non-sentient reality I assume you're referring to Pirsig's inorganic
level. If so, my guess would be that the inorganic level has pretty much
given up making any thrust toward higher morality and is fairly content
with just maintaining its own physical laws.
As for conflict between us and the universe (universe defined as the
inorganic level), Pirsig says all levels seek dominance and are thus in
constant conflict. Furthermore, there's conflict going on within each
level -- the eat or be eaten of the biological level, the struggle for
power and status in the social level, the battle of ideas at the
intellectual level. As an example of the latter, there's a fight going
right now between scientists who claim global warming is a serious
threat and those who say, "Bull. It ain't happening." (If you're
unfortunate enough to live in Texas, you're probably convinced global
warming is real even though it may not be.) Finally, there are value
conflicts going on within ourselves, as Pirsig so dramatically described
in the case of Lila, strong enough sometimes to put us in the loony bin.
So if you're puzzled by what you perceive to be conflict between
non-sentient and sentient morality, I think Pirsig shows that there are
moral conflicts all over the place. It's the way things are in a world
composed of nothing but moral values.
As for how to decide where to place your bets. Pirsig devotes most of
Chapter 13 of Lila to answering that question, so no need to go into it
here. Suffice is to say that Pirsig's highest values are freedom and
versatility, which is why ideas (apparently limitless) take moral
precedence over society and, in turn, over biology and the inorganic,
non-sentient universe.
Platt
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:29 CEST