[MD] -elitist ideas

[Kevin Perez]

Hello Marsha.
 
> I think Quality (a 'better' word) is amoral.  And rather than
> a drive towards "betterness", a drive towards Quality is a drive
> towards the amoral, dynamic Quality.  Do you disagree with this
> statement?
 
I think the Metaphysics of Quality was Pirsig's attempt to ground Quality
in a moral framework.  My take on morality, according to the MoQ, is that
a drive toward betterness evokes behaviors and interactions that are later
judged to be moral according to the pre-established framework.  When
a thing's intrinsic predisposition toward betterness (evolution to a higher
level?) is "expressed" the interaction is judged to be moral if it conforms
to the MoQ model or it is judged to be immoral if it does not, according to
the MoQ, imo.
 
Insofar as he implies that morality is meaningless apart from a
pre-established framework, I agree with Pirsig.
 
My views on morality are that it is not possible to engage other people
and things effectively without some kind of moral framework.  From this
point of view I'd say the only things that are amoral are the things we
don't engage, interact with, perceive or experience.
 
So for me, you question translates to, is Quality – that which defines me
and is my source – something that I engage, interact with, perceive and
experience?  Do I need a moral framework to experience Quality?
 
I agree with your statement Marsha.
 

Kevin
 
 

 
---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.