[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> What Pirsig really says is that cultural relativism gave SOM intellect " a
> ferocious instrument for dominance of intellect over society. Intellect
> could now pass judgment on all forms of social custom, including Victorian
> custom, but society could no longer pass judgment on intellect. That put
> intellect clearly in the driver's seat." (Lila, 11)
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against here. Perhaps, since you
> believe the MOQ has nothing to say about relativity, where and when does
> Pirsig says that anything is immoral outside of when a lower level
> threatens a higher level. Can you give me a single citation from Lila that
> indicates that something can be "immoral" for any other reason?

Sure. It's immoral for SOM intellect (a higher pattern) to dominate 
society because SOM intellect has no provision for morals. Result: social 
disaster where intellectuals consider it enlightened to entertain 
criminals at cocktail parties. 

> Or, tell me how according to the MOQ, a biological pattern that is
> threatening in one society (and hence immoral) would also be immoral in
> another society where that same biological pattern is not a threat?

Huh?

> [Platt]
> They were immoral because they were misused by SOM intellect to undercut
> social patterns of value, thereby loosening restrictions on biological
> forces. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> And until and unless those biological forces threaten the existence of
> social patterns, where and how does the MOQ claim they are immoral?

They are always there waiting for social patterns to weaken so they can 
gain dominance.  In other words, they are always a threat, simmering just 
below the thin surface of civilization..  

> [Arlo previouisly]
> You'd be hard pressed to come up with an explanation for how a prisoner in
> a secure facility for life could constitute a "threat" to the existence of
> a society. Take the recent execution in California. Did you support it?
> 
> [Platt]
> Absolutely.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Sad.
> 
> [Arlo previously]
> Do you feel his existence in that prison constituted a "serious threat" to
> the "established social structure"? If he would not have been put to death,
> would American society have been destroyed?
> 
> [Platt] 
> If America goes soft on murderers, rapists and pedophiles the society can
> indeed by destroyed. The recidivism rate among criminals is atrocious.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Canada has no capital punishment, nor does Germany, Iceland, Sweden or
> Denmark, nor does England. Those societies have not been "destroyed". Can
> you cite me any evidence (historical or otherwise) that murdering
> incarcerated prisoners has any appreciable effect on crime? Why is it that
> all the countries I've just cited have lower per capita murder rates than
> the U.S.? By your reasoning, countries that do not practice institutional
> murder of their prisoners should have much higher crime rates.
> 
> >From Wikipedia, though, I found the list of the top ten countries in the
> >number
> of prisoners they murder. You'll find America in good company...
> 
> 1 	China 	3,400+ 	260
> 2 	Iran 	159+ 	230
> 3 	Vietnam 	64+ 	77
> 4 	United States 	59 	20
> 5 	Saudi Arabia 	33+ 	130
> 6 	Pakistan 	15+ 	9
> 7 	Kuwait 	9+ 	400
> 8 	Bangladesh 	7+ 	5
> 9 	Singapore 	6+ 	140
> 10 	Yemen 	6+ 	30
> 11 	Egypt 	6+ 	8
> 12 	Belarus 	5+ 	48
> 
> Let's see... we are right in between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> This prisoner was incarcerated and no longer a threat to society. Murdering
> him was immoral. It didn't "protect society", it gave conservatives a
> moment of feel-good retribution. So sad that someone who professes an
> understanding of the MOQ could support such immorality.

Sad that you are apparently unaware that crime rates in many socialist  
European countries  are on the upswing and now match or surpass American 
crime rates. They are reaping the whirlwind of their multiculturist 
welfare policies. As for "understanding the MOQ," you seem to set yourself 
up as the sole arbiter of "understanding the MOQ." A bit arrogant wouldn't 
you say? 

> [Platt]
> Show me where Pirsig says that. How about patterns of value that threaten
> the existence of their own level? Like terrorism? Or are you now ready to
> admit that terrorism is a biological pattern?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Terrorism is a biological tool, as are armies, used in the conflict between
> social patterns of value. Historically, "terrorism" was used by a group
> that could not wage actual war against its enemy. Or, when a foreign
> government wanted its military actions handled covertly, and sponsors a
> local group to commit terrorist acts. And societies have a right to defend
> themselves from military invasion or aggression.

You consider Al-quada a society with moral social patterns?

> [Platt]
> You mean it's immoral of me to eliminate crabgrass from my lawn? Show me
> where Pirsig says that.
> 
> [Arlo]
> This is an interesting question. Consider that of vegetarianism Pirsig said
> "An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say it's scientifically
> immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution,
> that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables... It
> would add, also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an
> abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables. It would be immoral for
> Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since they would then be
> killing human beings in favor of a lower organism."
> 
> So, I suppse, I'd say that while its immoral for you to kill crabgrass that
> does not threaten your life, that "the moral force of this injunction is
> not so great". Now, if you killed the crabgrass to grow vegetables to eat,
> then the MOQ would likely find this completely moral.

An interesting answer.:-)

Platt