[MD] -elitist ideas

[Kevin Perez]

Hello Arlo.
 
> [Kevin]
> >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.
> 
> [Arlo]
> According to this, if Quality is amoral, it is something we don't engage,
> interact with, perceive or experience.
 
You quoted me out of context.  I said,
 
     "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."
 
"Other people and things" would be that which we perceive objectively, e.g.,
the morning rush hour, doing the dishes, typing this message, reading your
response, etc.
 
> Since Quality IS morality ("Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it."
> (Pirsig, LILA)), you are asking if one needs a moral framework to experience
> morals. When in fact, we have a moral framework BECAUSE we experience
> morals.
 
Yes, Pirsig says Quality and morality are identical.  And so a person can take
it or leave it.  I'll leave it.
 
> "Gravitation is an inorganic pattern of values", and Pirsig has called the
> static levels "sets of morals" (with Dynamic Quality being a moral force).
> Hence when we experience gravity we are experiencing inorganic moral
> value. "Truth is an intellectual pattern of values", and hence an intellectual
> moral value.
 
You're saying he establishes a moral framework, the MoQ, and then he uses
this framework to define his terms?
 

Kevin

  
---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.