[MD] The MoQ.org STRANGLES Creativity

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Case, Platt,

 Case opined:
> The Metaphysics of Quality is always about the union of opposites. To
> argue that one level has primacy or that one aspect is supreme misses
> the point. Quality shines not from freedom but from the balance of
> freedom and the rule of law.

Platt said:
I have no idea on what basis  Case came to that conclusion. If 
anything, the whole point of MOQ is the supremacy of one moral level 
over another, summed up in the following sentence from Lila:

"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other 
things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a 
higher level of evolution, is more moral."

In other words, Quality shines brighter as you climb the moral 
evolutionary ladder from inorganic to biological to social to 
individual.

Steve:

Case, your point about balance is well-taken. The following quote is where Pirsig makes what I think is his clearest statement in Lila about how the MOQ evolutionary hierarchy of value patterns can be applied:

"The Metaphysics of Quality suggests that the social chaos of the twentieth
century can be relieved by going back to this point of departure and
re-evaluating the path taken from it.  It says it is immoral for intellect
to be dominated by society for the same reasons it is immoral for children
to be dominated by their parents.  But that doesn't mean that children
should assassinate their parents, and it doesn't mean intellectuals should
assassinate society.  Intellect can support static patterns of society
without fear of domination by carefully distinguishing those moral issues
that are social-biological from those that are intellectual-social and
making sure there is no encroachment either way."



Also consistent with your view is this quote from the inro to LC:

"After reading through these and many other comments I’ve concluded
that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ would be to block the
notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral problem in the
universe. I have never seen it that way. The image in my mind as I wrote it
was of a large football field that gave meaning to the game by telling you who
was on the 20-yard line but did not decide which team would win. That was
the point of the two opposing arguments over the death penalty described in
Lila.That was the point of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic
Quality. Both are moral arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just
as two sides can go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim
constitutionality, so two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that
either the Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole
judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of
conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of moral
rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption."

Platt depserately wants the MOQ to be a quick fix for moral problems, but balance is more difficult to achieve than merely saying that one level is morally superior than another. When thinking of the levels as types of people as Platt wants to do in a Wilberized "types of people" version of the MOQ, he needs to not just view the levels as types of people where the highest level is the best kind of person, but also take Wilber's idea of a "second-tier" perspective where one can stand outside this hierarchy of types of people and see how all of them are part of an evolutionary system where lower levels can either contribute to or hinder the evolution of higher levels, and that the roll of this second tier person is to support achieving the sort of balance that is condusive to evolution towards betterness rather than participating blindly in the us versus them warfare of the other "types of people." 

Pirsig hints at that sort of perspective when he says,
"This creates the problem of getting maximum freedom for the emergence of
Dynamic Quality while prohibiting degeneracy from destroying the
evolutionary gains of the past.  Americans like to talk about all their
freedom but they think it's disconnected from something Europeans often see
in America: the degeneracy that goes with the Dynamic.
It seems as though a society that is intolerant of all forms of degeneracy
shuts off its own Dynamic growth and becomes static.  But a society that
tolerates all forms of degeneracy degenerates.  Either direction can be
dangerous.  The mechanisms by which a balanced society grows and does not
degenerate are difficult, if not impossible, to define."

Regards,
Steve




 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football ’06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today!