[MD] suspended in language

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Steve]
I don't think Pirsig is suggesting that we set up a rating scale for 
ranking cultures. As you point out, the problem of identifying a unit 
of culture shows the absurdity of such a project.

[Arlo]
Agree. Such a task is, I believe, an undertaking only for those who 
need/want to place themselves on some zenith. It is more about saying 
"Nannynannybooboo, I'm more morally superior that you-you", 
masturbating one's self-proclaimed superiority to the vast hordes of 
"others" out there. Watch, and you'll see a direct correlation 
between those who argue the loudest for "ranking" and those who place 
themselves at the top of such ranking.

[Steve]
I think Pirsig's intent in this statement is to deny relativism as 
the claim that talking about moral truth only makes sense with 
respect to a specific culture and whatever can be justified within a 
given culture is actually true for that culture. For the relativist, 
truth (ethical and scientific) is reduced to justification.

[Arlo]
I think Pirsig was speaking broadly to the moral superiority of 
dominance of higher levels over lower levels. "Cultures" where 
intellectual patterns are controlled by social patterns are immoral, 
as are "cultures" where biological values hold dominion over social 
values. But the word "culture" is itself problematic here, as it 
makes "culture" something outside of social and/or intellectual 
patterns themselves. Is "culture" a social pattern? An intellectual 
pattern? A combination of the social and intellectual levels? As 
Pirsig seems to use it, "culture" is the hierarchical instantiation 
of emergent patterns of value, it is the "MOQ in flesh and blood".