[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Steve Peterson]

> Hi Ron,


> I do believe that the MoQ does provide a contextual framework for  
> the human expereince
> Which promotes an understanding of relationships that do not draw  
> apon cultural terms
> of agreement  but a much larger context of four static patterns of  
> Quality which may be
> applied to and in, any cultural context.
>
> I'm still unsure as to the ability to accurately judge cultures by  
> it's standard though.
>
> A good MoQ arguement to follow, and I invite Platt in on it, is this:
>
> IS a culture that values intellectual quality  vs. one that does  
> not, truly superior
> even if that cultures intellectual level destroys and undercuts  
> it's social level?
>
> IS a intellectually destructive society
> superior to
> a socially oppressive society?


Steve:

I disagree that Pirig saw anything acultural about what he was doing  
based om his take on "I think therefore I am."

As for relativity, Pirsig saw the MOQ as giving us a way to talk  
about morals rather than as a solution to moral disagreements. For  
support of this claim, see the following from his intro to LC:

"I’ve concluded that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ  
would be to block the
notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral problem  
in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The image in my mind  
as I wrote it was of a large football field that gave meaning to the  
game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but did not decide  
which team would win. That was the point of the two opposing  
arguments over the death penalty described in Lila.That was the point  
of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic Quality. Both are moral  
arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just as two sides can  
go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim constitutionality, so  
two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that either the  
Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole  
judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of  
conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of  
moral rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption."

The above is only relativism if you believe in essences like The  
Moral Law or if you have bought into the philosophical promise of  
discovering an eternal foundation for our moral arguments. If you  
haven't, then I don't think you'd want to use the word relativism at  
all unless you encounter someone who takes the self-defeating  
position that nothing is better or worse than anything else.

Best,
Steve