[MD] Harmony in the MoQ

[Case]

Steve,

I retitled this thread because I was being purely sarcastic and something
of a dick when I started it. Below I have also removed the lengthy quotes
from your comments.


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:

> 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."

[Case]
Oddly I desparately want what Platt wants too. It is what we all want.
Someone to take us off to the side, tell us everything we need to know and
tuck us in at night. But it just doesn't work that way. An interesting
case in point would be Jesus whose main point was that the true law could
only be found in our hearts. Postureing to the written law for him was
just hypocracy.

I am listening to a lengthy audio book of Wilbur's now but am otherwise
unfamiliar with him. I like his catagories of I, We, It. But as you may
have noticed I am highly suspicious of Splitters. Wilbur does seem to be
more of a lumper so I reserve judgement.

Steve:
> 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."

[Case]
Reminds me of Goldilocks.