[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> Can you think of any activity that is 'immoral" or "wrong" that is so 
> not because of a level conflict?
> 
> [Platt]
> Yes. I gave the example Pirsig gave that you deny as you explained below.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Again, the example you gave was certainly immoral because of a level 
> conflict (intellectual understanding versus biological hunger). If 
> you disagree, would you say then that it is immoral for a bear to eat 
> fish if berries are abundant? Is the bear aware of its behavior being 
> "immoral"? If not, then how can this immorality be contained within 
> the biological level?

You asked if "I could think . . ."  So I told you what I thought.  I wonder
from the berry's point of view if it doesn't consider what the bear is 
doing to it as immoral. If I was a berry I would think so. 
 
> [Platt]
> But if there are no immoral patterns within a level as you suggest, 
> then I presume one intellectual pattern is just as good as another.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Certainly not. Some are better. Just as I presume the bear eats the 
> fish because it is better (biologically) for it to do so.

So there are moral conflicts within a level, assuming what is "better" is 
more moral. Surely the fish doesn't think its better (biologically) to be 
eaten.

> [Platt]
> Would you say that from a social level view that all social patterns 
> are equally moral?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Equally moral? I'd say that all social patterns are patterns of 
> social morality (by definition), but that some are better than others.
> 
> "But in the Metaphysics of Quality all these sets of morals, plus 
> another Dynamic morality, are not only real, they are the whole 
> thing." (LILA) I'd say, again, that by definition a social pattern of 
> value is a social pattern of morals.
> 
> When social patterns become "unequally moral" is only in their 
> conflict with the intellectual level, or in their inability to allow 
> room for Dynamic evolution. But both of these pronouncements of 
> "immorality" or "unequal morality" between sets of social patterns is 
> only visible from the intellectual level. And hence, conflict between
> levels.

When you say "better," do you mean "more moral?" Pirsig does. I do. 

Also, what about my question, "Is it possible to leave man out of the MOQ?"