[MD] -elitist ideas

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Kevin]
Good question.  Because the word _quality_ connotes value how can the source of
all not be moral?

[Arlo]
I don't know if its just the word "quality" that connotes "value". Pirsig's
central premise is demonstrating how Quality/Value/Moral are the same thing. 

[Kevin]
Consider a similarly deep question.  If the ultimate source connotes anything
does it also connote the thing's opposite?  If not then what is the source of
the opposite?

[Arlo]
This is a restatement of the fundamental theist issue, how can "evil" derive
from an "All Good" source? How can "immorality" derive from an all moral
source? I'd caution here the same thing I said with Marsha, I am not a fan of
the word "moral", it has too many social-political connotations, and is often
enacted as a power-word in controlling others. Because of this, its difficult
to use "moral" as Pirsig uses it without bringing along some of the hangups
that have hampered the word for a long time.

I am tempted to rephrase the question using "value". How can no-value derive
from value. Pirsig may likely respond that a thing that has no-value does not
exist, and as such no-value does not derive from value, for as soon as we point
to something as an exemplar of no-value, it suddenly has value. 

In the same sense, there is no amorality, or a thing that is amoral does not
exist. Hence what we see around us are moral patterns, ranging from inorganic
to intellectual.

The word "immorality" confuses the issue because it is, unlike "moral",
specifically tied to social-intellectual patterns. Or, it is a "top-down"
analytical word. We, coming from the social-intellectual perspective, would
call it "immoral" when an asteroid destroys biological life (inorganic patterns
destroying biological patterns), but the asteroid is doing nothing "immoral"
from the inorganic perspective. It is just doing what asteroids do, following
inorganic quality patterns (such as gravity, etc.). "Immorality", then, is a
metaphysical word, not a experiential word (Jees, I hope that makes sense).

[Kevin]
I responded to Marsha's question the way I did because, for me, the ultimate
source is the source of all things; good, bad, life, death, loss, renewal, etc.
The judgement of moral or immoral is our doing.  I believe this is what Pirsig
meant when he said Quality is the source of all and man is the measure of all.

[Arlo]
Here again I think the word "moral", and its connotations, is a detriment.
Consider "value". If I said, "The judgment of value or no-value (avalue?) is
our doing", how would we describe the amoeba's movement away from the acid?
Certainly it is a value judgment (although lacking in the latter
post-experiential symbolic representations). 

My understanding of Pirsig would say that "man" constructs value for himself
through his inorganic, biological, social and intellectual engagements, but
that this does not mean that only "man" perceives value. My dog constructs
value for herself as well, but through an experiential frame that lacks the
sophisticated symbolic repertoire of our social-intellectual experience.