[MD] Subjectivity in the MOQ

[Platt Holden]

Ham:

> Friend Ham is not sure whether this Pirsig "stroke" is a really a 
> contradiction of "universal morality" or not, since the word "morality" 
> doesn't appear in the SODV paper.
 
Value judgments and moral judgments are synonymous in the MOQ.

> Clearly, our notions of morality vary
> in 
> accordance with one's individual upbringing and cultural influences. 
> These 
> may be considered the "static patterns" that "influence his final
> judgment." 
> At least the author allows for subjective "judgment" which, in my opinion,
> is the determining factor of any morality system.  If we cannot judge or
> discriminate goodness from badness there is no morality, either
> subjectively 
> or in the collective society.  For if Value remains unrealized, how or why
> should we choose to be moral in our behavior?  And, if morality is 
> universal, how could we be free to choose immorality?

Looks to me like you are proponent of moral relativism. Right? 

> What I object to, from a metaphysical perspective, is the definition of 
> fundamental reality as "the aesthetic continuum".  Here's an example from
> Andre's 3/13 post in the "Chance v. Dynamic Quality" thread:
> 
> [Andre]:
> > A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at length in the light of the
> > chemistry professor analogy.
> > First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent', nor 'poof'',
> > nor anything teleological in the theological sense. It is the
> > undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
> 
> Now, a "continuum" is an uninterrupted sequence or "gradient" of change --
> as in a prismatic spectrum or the set of real numbers, whereas everything
> in 
> existence is relative and differentiated.  What is implied here is that 
> Quality (Value) is such a continuum, i.e., a continuous range from good to
> evil, or beautiful to hideous, as it were.  That, indeed, is the
> perspective 
> of the value-sensible subject in a relational world.  But it makes no
> sense 
> as the fundamental or primary source of reality -- if this is what Dynamic
> Quality (Value) is alleged to be.  Instead it makes existential reality an
> "amoral universe" in which the value-sensible agent chooses what is 
> desirable or undesirable, moral or immoral, in his/her interpretation of
> experience.  This valuistic continuum or gradient exists only so long as
> there is a cognizant subject to actualize it as finite objects (things and
> events experienced as "real").  Ultimate Reality is not a gradient but the
> absolute, undifferentiated source of what can only be realized
> incrementally 
> by the sensible agent.

Pirsig defines continuum differently: ." By 'continuum' he means that it 
goes on and on forever." (SODV)  No "gradients" apply. You may be tilting 
at windmills.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, 
Platt