LS Re: Moral precedence in the four levels

Bodvar Skutvik (
Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:18:03 +0100

Mon, 17 Aug 1998 Theo Schramm wrote:

> Bo tells me that the MoQ solves the big questions but leaves the small
> ones, such as morality within marriage, to 'ordinary sensibilities.'
> This sounds horribly close to 'just what you like subjectivism' to me
> and I would suggest that the MoQ MUST be able to provide Quality advice
> for mundane human morality, otherwise it becomes an intellectual mind
> game making unproveable and mystical assertions, (of which, in my
> opinion, there have been far too many of here recently), rather than a
> practical, elegant metaphysics. To my mind, unless these questions can
> be answered satisfactorily not
> many people beyond the squad are going to be very impressed by a moral
> metaphysics which pushes morality into the realm of 'ordinary>
> sensibilities.'
> Bo makes the comparison between relativity and Newtonian mechanics
> saying that Newtonian mechanics is the best way of approaching everyday
> questions of science. In the same way Bo feels that SOM is perfectly
> suited to human ethical questions and the MoQ need not intervene. If (as
> Pirsig claims) SOM ethics equals 'just what you like subjectivism' or
> Emotivism then Bo, as has previously been suggested on this forum, is
> suggesting that Emotivism is the best way to approach ethical questions.
> If this is the case then what exactly does Pirsig mean when he calls the
> MoQ a 'moral system' and of what PRACTICAL use is it to mankind? It
> seems to me that in this scenario 'moral' is synonymous with so many
> other words that the use of that particular word is obfuscation at its
> worst. Ironic philosophy. Let us simply call it a system which has
> little to say about morality and be done with it if this is what it
> comes down to.

Theo and Squad
I do agree with you that an all embracing philosophical system must
provide an "ethics" (Spinoza and Kant for instance), and so does the
MOQ although in a manner different from the two mentioned.

When I said that marital affairs are best solved by ordinary (classic)
sensibility I did not have Subject/Object METAPHYSICS in mind, if so
you would have been correct. From that point of view morals are
subjective and needs a personal God to give them a mysterious
"objective" subjectivity.

What I meant was subject-object thinking (which according
to my SOTAQI idea is identical to Q-Intellect), and you cannot
have understood (my version of) the Classic-Relativity relationship.
Nobody would think of calculating planetary orbits by Relativistic
means, but when inexplicable observations occur (an infinitesimal
deviation in Mercury's orbit was explained that way) it must be

So, to look to the MOQ for advice about adultery or shoplifting is
unnecessary, yet if you want the full treatment it provides it too,
but by giving a new MOQ basis to "classic" subject-object
morality (when the metaphysical shift is recognized) this becomes a
subdivision of the big Q-morality.

"Little to say about morality"!? You must be joking Mr Schramm :-) It
puts morals up as the very frabric of reality - a revolution of
Copernican proportions.


homepage -
unsubscribe/queries -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:39 CEST