[MD] Reason, Tradition

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt, Matt,

Platt said:
> A case could be made that the distinction between
> these two types of 
> morality -- personal and social -- is more in line
> with an evolutionary 
> morality than Pirsig's distinction between social
> and intellectual. 
> After all, what is so moral about such intellectual
> patterns as 
> Newton's Law of Gravity, Plato's Republic or Freud's
> Introduction to 
> Psychoanalysis?  

Steve:
Newton's Law of Gravity is not supposed to be "a
moral," but the MOQ still recognizes it as a pattern
of value. 

We can derive intellectual morals like consistency
with experience, logical coherence, explaining
experience in a broad way rather than specifically,
etc. from studying such patterns of value. 

No one probably thought of using the term moral to
describe Quality in the intellectual sense before
Pirsig. As he said, what we normally think of as
morals are the social-biological code.

I think that you are again confusing Pirsig's
description of the inter-level moral codes -- the
rules that our culture has developed to deal with
conflict between levels -- and the levels themselves,
but that is by far not the biggest problem...

Platt:
>But many attributes of personal
> morality are to be 
> found in each of these giants of human
> accomplishment. Thoughts 
> (intellectual patterns) are not always moral. But
> human individuals, 
> possessing the characteristics of personal morality
> outlined above and  
> often contrarians to social moral conformity, have
> been the shakers and 
> movers of evolutionary progress. IMO they deserve
> their own level at 
> the top.

Steve:
A 4th level that makes any sense does not "deserve its
own level at the top" because you think that it
represents a bunch of morals that you want to cheer
for. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

To say that they form a level at the top you need to
argue that they evolved out of the social level and
evolved as something completely distinct from the
social level.

When you say "thoughts (intellectual patterns) are not
always moral," you are displaying a deep
misunderstanding of Pirsig.

The fact that thoughts do not even seem moral to you
or to the average person is evidence that we are
talking about something completely other than social
patterns when we consider intellectual patterns.
That's why they "deserve their own level at the top." 

It's not just because someone thinks they are better.
It's because they are a whole new type of Good that
someone thinking in terms of social morality may not
even see as Quality.

Up until now I thought that you could see the
difference bewteen the value that holds an idea
together and the value that holds a society together.
I just thought you merely wanted to use a different
name for the latter. Now I see the problem runs much
much deeper.

By the way, there is nothing in your list of
"individual level" morals that Rigel wouldn't cheer
for, too. With the intellectual level we are talking
about the sort of Quality that Rigel and Lila pretty
much don't see.

Can you tell me how you are different than the
character of Rigel in how you view morality? I see you
two pretty much voting for the same candidates and
supporting the same traditional family values. 

I could be wrong.  I'm sure you'll let me know.

Regards,
Steve






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com