[MD] From each... to each

[Platt Holden]

Hi SA:

[SA] 
>      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.

I think you are right on target. What society needs is a morality based 
on intellect. That is precisely what the MOQ purports to offer -- not a 
moral code based on bleating preachers or moldy traditions, but on 
reason.  But as I've suggested, the problem is morality itself. Few 
want to address it except to stake a claim to the the moral high ground 
in politics by laying a guilt trip on the opposition for past sins. So 
most people would just as soon forget about the whole thing. Who needs 
another guilt trip?

Platt