[MD] Sin Part 1

[MarshaV]

At 11:09 AM 11/23/2006, you wrote:

> > [Platt]
> > I judge moral superiority on the basis of the MOQ levels, plus DQ. That
> > I could be wrong I admit. I don't consider myself the final word on the
> > MOQ.
> >
> > [Case]
> > How do you think the levels clarify moral order? Is this the idea that
> > it is better for an idea to kill a society than for a society to kill an
> > idea? So that anything at a higher level is morally superior to anything
> > at a lower level?
>
>Yes. That's the way I see it. It's a general guide, of course. Pirsig
>made it clear that the MOQ was not intended to settle specific ethical
>questions. (Sorry, I can't find his actual quote.) But I'm sure you
>remember his discussion in Lila about the doctor morally choosing his
>patient over the germ even though both want to live. What has stuck in
>my mind was his assertion in Lila that free speech, freedom of
>religion, trial by jury, etc. , in other words, individual rights, were
>all intellect vs. society issues. That's one reason why I always
>associate the individual with the intellectual level, the other reason
>being that societies don't think, only individuals do. Do this make
>sense to you?

Platt,

You wrote to Case, "It's a general guide, of course.  Pirsig made it 
clear that the MOQ was not intended to settle specific ethical 
questions.  (Sorry I can't find his actual quote.)"

I find this amazing.  It's huge.   Are you sure?

I'm not really surprised, though, how could it be otherwise.

Marsha