[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi

> Hi Magnus:
>
> If you want to take the time (and have the patience) to show the way Pirsig
> switches between underlying assumptions and how stacks reveal such assumptions
> and such switching, I'm all ears. Specific examples with quotes from Pirsig
> would  help.

I thought that was what I had been doing the last few days.

Ok, here we go again.

Q1:
"It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code 
of intellect vs.society, the moral right of intellect to be free of 
social control. Freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, of travel, trial by jury, habeas
corpus, government by consent -- these "human rights" are all intellect
vs.society issues. According to the
Metaphysics of Quality, these "human rights" have not just a sentimental
basis, but a rational, metaphysical
basis. They are essential to the evolution of life from a lower level of
life. They are for real." (Lila, 24)

Here, Pirsig focuses on the intellectual patterns of each individual 
human. These patterns are not dependent on the social patterns of the 
society in which that human lives. Even if you take that person and move 
it to the moon, it will still be able to think and manipulate thoughts 
in his brain. So, the social patterns that those intellectual patterns 
depend on, are not the social patterns of its former society, such as 
church, school, yada yada. The intellectual patterns of the individual 
human are build using what I call the universal stack, but this is not 
recognized here very often. People seem to be content with the notion 
that the intellectual patterns of a human *is* dependent on the social 
patterns of the society, but if you really think about it, it's not the 
case.


Q2:
92. I think the MOQ would say that society has a moral right to control
biology.  The danger is in that in controlling biology society creates 
customs that injure society itself. Clearly the cost of caring for 
biologically defective people is a burden on society, but the question 
is, if society sanctions the murder of a defective fetus, what other 
kinds of murder is it going to sanction?  Think of the money that could 
be saved by executing ALL criminals, ALL mentally ill people, ALL people 
with an IQ below 100, ALL old people,  ALL people with poor DNA 
patterns, ALL people who can't do 40 pushups, and so on.  The question 
is, where do you cut it off?  I personally am pro-choice, but I 
understand the moral integrity of those who are not.  It is a matter for 
society through its mechanisms of politics to decide and keep deciding 
as it evolves toward a better world."

Here, Pirsig has moved to the human perspective stack, and in that 
stack, humans are merely the biological patterns with which society is 
built. I'm not saying this is *wrong*, I'm saying it's a different 
stack, and you get a whole different answer to the question.

	Magnus