[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 16 Jun 2010 at 19:56, Mary wrote:

> [Mary Replies] 
> I think you are, Platt.  The so-called Dq/Sq split is not really a split for
> us at all since we cannot perceive DQ.  In the instant we do it has already
> become SQ, so there is no perceived split and no choice has been made.  It
> just is.  The analytical knife comes into play after the SQ has been
> perceived, at which point Pirsig is saying that the S/O split we choose to
> make is just that - a division we have chosen.  He tries to persuade us that
> there is another choice - perception as patterns of value.  

{Platt]
Excellent, a revealing insight. Never realized that before. But now that you've 
brought it to light, it's obvious -- like all creative and valuable "Ah, so" 
experiences.

[Mary]
> The S/O split devalues Quality, placing recognition of Quality as a lower
> form of perception than the recognition of the Subjects and Objects as
> entities in and of themselves.  Pirsig points out that this is wrong, and
> has lead to our fundamental confusion on the whole subject.  When what is
> Quality is demoted to a subjective attribute then morals are relative,
> debatable, and no consistent 'opinion' can be hoped for.  When morals and
> value are demoted to the status of attribute, then the invention of the
> thermonuclear bomb had only 'relative' moral implications.  There was never
> a good reason not to do it.  If all the world is subjects and objects, then
> the discovery of any new 'object' is always "the good" since we live in a
> world where nothing has higher status than subjects contemplating objects.
> That's all there is.  It is only after the fact that we could debate the
> moral value of doing science in that direction, and this debate was weak
> from the start since it could only deal with a subjective, relative
> morality, not a universal one.  

[Platt]
Another excellent insight. Thus, the belief in moral relativity is overthrown 
by the MOQ, just as when one awakes to the realization that when the existence 
of a general truth is acknowledged at the start, the belief in relative truth 
is overthrown (Ex: It's true that truth is relative.)

Moreover, you've provided a excellent critique of Krimel's "Transhumanism" post 
wherein the moral implications of so-called "advances" were given short shrift. 

Thanks, Mary.
Platt