[MD] -elitist ideas

[Case]

[Arlo]
Amoral is defined as the absence of morals. By claiming DQ is amoral 
you are making as much a definition as when Pirsig claims DQ to be a 
"moral force". I suppose you could claim "mu", but that's different 
than a statement declaring amorality. Incidentally, even claiming it 
is "Dynamic" is a definition.

To be honest with you, Marsha, I myself am not fond of the word 
"moral", it is still very heavily laden with social-cultural 
connotations, and is often enacted as a power-word to gain control 
over others. I appreciate Pirsig was trying to rescue this word from 
its popular usage, and I do agree with him that the Quality is a 
moral force, but typically I prefer "value" or "betterness" (which is 
how this thread began) to refer to the Quality force. (I also think 
many see "morality" as the decree of pre-divined intent, that is by 
saying Quality created inorganic patterns of value because it was 
"moral" to do so often connotes an extra-natural being with a 
pre-intent to "create". I, of course, deny this, which is why I think 
we can have our cake and eat it to with regard to evolution (it is 
both moral and chance.... I think I just myself up for attacks from 
both Case AND Platt!))

[Case]
Well you called it right from my end. First the moral order business. If you
elect to call magnetism and gravity moral laws at the inorganic level I
think it is a bit silly but previously was willing to say, no harm done.
After all calling them such has the potential to inject a bit if rigor into
thinking about social morality which is what I thought Pirsig was up to.
Unfortunately all this does is introduce slop into the inorganic level.

The same holds with "betterness" it only makes a hint of sense when you
define in such a way as to render the term meaningless. Better is a relative
term that only makes sense with respect to the person stating that this is
better than that. There is not "betterness" out there in the future
directing us this way or that way; waving to us and beckoning us forward.

Betterness is in fact a wholly subjective term. You could I suppose claim
that it is "better" to live than to die and therefore that which supports
life is "better" that that which does not. Survival for species and cultures
could then be regarded as the highest "Good". I kind of like that one but it
does point to some kind of ultimate specialization with a master species
whose survival is the highest "betterness." But the question is always
begged, better for who? Better than what? 















At 01:26 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
>At 11:27 AM 3/11/2007, Arlo wrote:
> >[Marsha]
> >I stated that Quality/DQ was amoral.  I did not state that SPoVs 
> were amoral.
> >
> >[Arlo]
> >How does morality derive from amorality? Let's back away from static
> >social-level morals, and let's say "gravitation". If gravity is
"inorganic
> >moral value" (as Pirsig states), how does it derive from an amoral
Quality?
>
>Arlo,
>
>Up until now our discussion has been focused totally on Quality/DQ,
>not static quality.  Why the switch?
>
>While I think Dynamic Quality is undefinable (Pirsig says so.).  I
>think the static quality, static patterns of value, on all four
>levels are nothing but morality.
>
>If you're asking me how a static pattern of value comes into
>existence.  My answer is through an experience event.   No
>experience, no value.   No value, no morality.
>
>Besides what is amorality?  Amoral means without moral
>quality.   Amoral cannot be defined.  It's like no-thing.
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/