[MD] An inquiry into morals

[Heather Perella]

>  >     [SA ]
> >     Yes, the individual worth related to gumption
> >would propel a good discussion into morals.  Maybe
> we get trapped in the level system so much, it seems
> to throw us off-track from discussing what we really
> want to get to.  The level system works, but it also
> traps and leads the discussion away from what we
want to
> get to.  The individual worth, the value and moral
loss
> >this culture involves itself with is depleting. 
> Now, how we want to label the individual on any
level, I
> >say throw that labeling out and move on with the
> >discussion, as you two seem to be.  Let's get into
> the actual discussion, not labeling what the
discussion
> is about.  This is a good start, but on specific
> issues, I wonder where this will go.



> Steve:
> I don't think the idea of the moral hierarchy for
> Pirsig was ever to label individuals. He used
> characters to illustrate types of patterns of value,
> but it is the patterns that get labeled, not
> individuals.


      Sure.  I agree.  I don't see how I said any
differently.  I mentioned individual above, but this
was a way to escape the trap of 'what belongs in this
level and that level'.  That's intellect spinning
wheels, categorizing like an autistic rainman: 
2+2=4,hmm 4 is in the phone book 100 billion times in
Altoona, PA, which has a population of 500,000 and
5+5=10, hmmm 10 is in the phone book, etc... - that's
how I see this categorizing, argue, categorize, argue,
over and over again, as like a mathmatician that
forgets he has a family at home or Scrooge counting $
Christmas Eve, morning, and all the other days of the
year.  And if not, well, I laughed while typing this.


woods,
SA




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs