[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[Andre]

Hamilton said:
Nor do I believe, as Andre apparently does, that "There is a moral code 
that establishes the supremacy of social order over biological life ... 
[and] moral codes over the social order." In other words, I don't 
believe in a world that is moral by divine or executive fiat.

Andre:
A strange assertion on a site discussing Pirsig's MoQ and the rejection 
of which leads to a perspective whereby, indeed, all morality appears to 
vanish. But discussing 'human rights' as an example i.e. an intellectual 
pattern of value asserting supremacy over social patterns of value 
Pirsig argues that these rights are not 'a kind of vague, amorphous soup 
of sentiments' of which it is 'reasonable' to be expected to take into 
consideration. No, these human rights do 'not just have a sentimental 
basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis'. (LILA, p 313)

Ham:
For, if that were so, there would be no quest for moral virtue, no human 
need to discriminate between the good, the bad, and the indifferent.

Andre:
'In a subject-object understanding of the worldthese terms ('human 
rights' and 'reasonable') these terms have no meaning...There is no such 
thing as moral reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and 
nothing else(ibid). In Ham's terms 'man' having 'value sensibility'. But 
patterns of value are not properties of 'man' any more than cats are the 
property of catfood or a tree is a property of soil.

It is therefore absolutely moral for the doctor to kill the germ.

This morality at play, this moral reasonableness is established in the 
MoQ's 'codes': 
inorganic-chaotic,biological-inorganic,social-biological,intellectual-social 
and Dynamic-static (LILA,p307).

Perhaps, by reading LILA properly (and not through your essentialist 
glasses) you come to realize that the discrimination 'between the good, 
the bad, and the indifferent' as you put it is what is happening 
everywhere. It is the dance of LILA...the quest of moral virtue. This is 
the heart of the MoQ.

It's hopelessly confused thinking (and living) if you do not consider 
yourself part of it. You are fooling yourself.

Ham:
It is my belief that we exist in an amoral universe,...

Andre:
Believe what you like Ham. To you it appears that believing is seeing 
(ZMM). Since, from an MoQ perspective/consciousness the world is 
composed of nothing but moral value(LILA,p101)it follows that 'we'are 
patterns of moral value. These patterns of value have 'us'. You cannot 
be anything else but moral value, the static patterns of value that make 
up this world capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. These are the 
static patterns as they live. They are manifestations of Quality of 
morality.

And you are living it Ham! Whether you accept it, like it, or not. You 
are these patterns.

Ham:
Is this where we have an 'SOM' problem, John?

Andre:
I won't speak for John but yes, from a MoQ perspective YOU have a great 
problem identified by Pirsig called 'SOM'.