[MD] From each... to each

[Heather Perella]

Hello Platt,

     Yes, I agree with you that good vs. evil is a
conflictive sides SOM issue.  That's what I was trying
to say.  Pirsig's quality, the flat-out quality is
this, and therefore a focus is pin-pointed for us to
start with.  The levels do fight or support each
other.  If the intellectual level is upheld by the
societal level, and what is reasoned out by society as
a valid argument, then the intellectual level must be
upheld morally above what society whats.  Society is
therefore to accept the intellectual quality
identified by the intellect.  Society does not
necessarily have to fight with the intellectual level
if morals are understood by society at large and the
individual intellect is pointing out a moral argument.
 If society fights morals, which are intellectually
arguable as good, because if there is no goodness in
the world then the world has no goodness, therefore
that is not good at all.  Thus, if society fights
morals, then society is not moral.  If society can not
view morality anywhere, then society has no morals. 
This is your point as to why society has not accepted
Pirsig's morality, because I sense too much 'no
morals' in this society.  Society is not accepting the
levels and the quality this everywhere is.

SA
 



> Hi SA:
> 
> >      And Platt you said at this end of this post I
> am
> > commenting on something like we're not getting
> very
> > far - well that WE is the people who are not
> accepting
> > the quality of a moral universe.  What other way
> could
> > their be to understand and attempt to perfect
> > goodness?  Without goodness in the world, the
> world
> > will be not good, and that would be not good for
> this
> > world at all.
> 
> As Pirsig pointed out, the "good" is different at
> different levels, and 
> the levels fight one another for dominance. What is
> biologically good 
> (germs want to live) is not good at the social and
> intellectual levels 
> (we kill deadly germs so society and individuals can
> survive). Another 
> problem with "the world is good" is that people have
> different ideas 
> about "goodness." Radical Islamists think it's good
> to decapitate 
> infidels and otherwise inflict pain and suffering.
> Many in the West 
> believe it's good to defeat radical Islamists by
> likewise inflicting 
> pain and suffering on them. So good and evil are
> relative to Pirsig's 
> levels or whose side you are on in a conflict. Since
> most people never 
> heard of Pirsig's moral levels they take the latter
> as their cue in 
> deciding moral questions, like "You're either for us
> or against us." To 
> go much further in contemplating moral questions is
> what most people 
> avoid, like they avoid contemplating their own
> demise, the worst evil 
> of all. For that reason I'm suggesting that one of
> the barriers to wide 
> acceptance of the MOQ is its emphasis on morality
> which most people 
> would rather not think about in any depth.
> 
> Platt
>   
> 
> 
> 
>  
> >      I have begun to watch the Nightmare videos
> that
> > Khaled linked us to, and the whole right versus
> wrong,
> > good versus evil world is a very clear cut
> > understanding of things that all sides are
> bringing
> > into view for the world.  Quality being a
> foundation
> > of the world brings in the first inclination of
> what
> > people could notice.  They look over there or over
> > here and could notice quality.  If good and evil
> want
> > to be created and self-prophesied, then so be it,
> that
> > will be the world society, running around thinking
> > good and evil are out there and they must find it
> and
> > will find it, because good and evil exist. 
> Quality is
> > just that.  The world based on what it is -
> quality,
> > is a no wiggle room metaphysics.  What of the pain
> and
> > suffering in the world?  What of wars and all the
> > evils of this world?  Is it the world that is
> evil,
> > hurt or suffering?  Or, is it the view we have
> about
> > the world that brings on this self-fulfilled
> prophesy.
> >  I would rather fulfill a world that is Quality.
> >      Low- quality or high-quality.  Quality it
> still
> > is, and with SQ/DQ balance the quality moral
> order,
> > once valued, could bring on a flow that is
> excellent! 
> > Is MOQ used because it is better, even if it is
> not
> > true?  Wouldn't what is better for us in a moral
> sense
> > be true for us, also?  I would say yes.
> > 
> > 
> > SA
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> >
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 

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