[MD] From each... to each

[Platt Holden]

Hi Arlo, 

[Platt previously]
> When you write, "I mean we all pay lip service to morality and try to do
> the right thing and all that. But, mostly we chafe against the
> obligations, duties and sacrifices that morality imposes." And, "Say
> what you will about the Hippies, they expressed what I'm talking about
> -- an effort to throw off the yoke of the approved right way to think
> and act, and to create a new world free from smothering guilt trips.
> Then here comes Pirsig with his "the world is a moral order." How
> appealing is that?"...

[Arlo] 
> This really comes across as nothing more than an interpretation that the
> MOQ demands adherence to social authority, or social codes. Which,
> albeit very much inline with the "return to Victorianism" we are
> witnessing in America today, I don't think really captures the MOQ.

Not what I meant to get across. I apologize for not being clear. What I 
tried to convey was that many people, on seeing that the MOQ is about 
morality, will jump to the wrong conclusion that it is about social 
authority and social codes. To them, that's what "morality" means. 
 
> For example, you taut "obligations, duties and sacrifices", but the only
> of these I ever hear you arguing for are the Victorian social codes
> relating to biology and status. Indeed, any mention of "obligations,
> duties and sacrifices" that aren't merely rehashed Victorian mores is
> always met with cries of Marxism. Are our "obligations, duties and
> sacrifices" simply obedience to social authority, an authority based on
> Victorian mores?

No. Not just Victorian mores. Wouldn't you agree that most social codes 
(Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Victorian, Modern, Liberal, Conservative, 
whatever) call upon people to think and behave in certain ways?

Anyway, what I argue for or against is irrelevant to the point I'm 
trying to make which is the very term "morality" prevents Pirsig's 
philosophy from not only gaining wide acceptance, but even a fair 
hearing.

> You continue to lambast the Hippies, but this was for Pirsig a moral
> revolution whose fault is only that it came to confuse biological
> quality and Dynamic Quality. Thus, the "moral revolution" of the future
> should be one that retraces the Hippie movement, but does not make this
> mistake. Without this, all you offer is The New Aristorcracy Part Deux.

I didn't lambaste the Hippies this time but rather gave them credit for 
rebelling against the "oughts" of the society which they found 
objectionable, like many would like to but haven't the courage. Again, 
my point is that many people find the demands of social morality 
binding and thus objectionable, whether they think of themselves as 
Hippies or not. And when they see the word "morality," they think of 
only of social level morality which they would rather not deal with 
except on a superficial, casual conversation basis. 

> Finally, the effects of SOM is more than just "hippies who refused to
> yield to social authority". DMB's post describes this quite nicely.

I'm all for getting rid of SOM for the reasons you, DMB and Pirsig 
cite, or at least offering an alternative. The question I raise is, 
"How?"  Do you have any suggestions?

Platt

P.S. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not in favor of removing all social 
codes, i.e. anarchy. Some order is necessary for group survival.