Hey Jon, Jon M., Ian and all:
JON:
"My proposal was that Morality is a real aspect of nature. I compared it to
> gravity, which everyone considers a real aspect of nature. While science
> doesn't know what gravity *really* is, we still consider it real. We think
> it's common sense to know gravity is real. I say Morality is like gravity;
it
> exists....
....Part of the problem with words is all the excess baggage they carry,
and this
> was one of the reasons Struan wanted to replace Quality with "X". And
> certainly the word Morality carries excess baggage and evokes a lot of
> religious connotations. "
RICK:
It's so hard to negotiate that delicate balance between allowing a word to
evolve and equivocating and diluting its meaning. Struan insisted that
"Morality" traditionally relates to exclusively human affairs (Social
Integrity) and I believe he is correct on that point.... traditionally
speaking, that is. And though I agree that he's correct about the
traditional usage of the word, I don't agree that the meaning of the word
"Morality" should be barred from evolving.
Pirsig likes to equate the meanings of Quality, Morality, Value, and
Reality.... it's a hard (and occasionally confusing) leap to make but IMHO a
beneficial one in many ways... (just think, if REALITY = MORALITY than an
ALTERNATE REALITY is really an ALTERNATE MORALITY.... how telling is
that...)
>
JON:
> "We assume Morality is a human or social invention, much like the laws
passed
> in courts are inventions. To assume this would indeed be logical and
> rational, but it wouldn't be correct. Morality is not a law passed in a
> court; it exists regardless of the courts. If a court decided we didn't
need
> gravity anymore, gravity wouldn't go away. Morality won't go away. Oh, we
can
> ignore it, much like we can ignore gravity, but we will suffer the
> consequences."
RICK:
I have a small problem with the above... Just laws are Moral laws and
therefore are not only inventions... they are as real as gravity. Pirsig
himself refers to rights like freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and
speech, etc. as Intellectual PoVs. A society produced the Constitution of
the United States, but no one produced the principles it respects and the
freedoms it guaruntees... those are the Intellectual Values and are as real
as any other Value... they cannot justly be repealed by any court or
congress, and like the law of gravity... if we fail to pay them heed, we
suffer.
JONATHAN:
>
> "....ontology is so important and so intrinsic to our whole way of
thinking
> that I find it laughable when members of the MoQ discussions simply say
> "SOM is wrong".
RICK:
Once again I'd like play on difference between SOLogic (a method of
thinking) and SOMetaphysics (a philosophical position describing the nature
of reality).... I don't think anybody has a major gripe with SOL... it's
SOM that causes all the trouble... and while I wouldn't say "SOM is wrong"
(which would be like saying a painting of a tree is wrong), I can see no
reason to laugh if one simply says "SOM is a lower Quality Metaphysics than
the MoQ."
>
> > STRUAN (on Utility/Morality):
> "There is, of course, an important relationship there, but, they are not
of
> the same order. They
> should not be seen as ontologically synonymous. The main defect? No. The
main
> defect is that the MoQ
> relies upon SOM for its veracity."
>
> JON:
> "Here we are getting close to something. Even Struan admits that there is
"an
> important relationship" between what he calls "the good of utility" and
"the
> good of morality."
>
> I wish Struan would come back and elaborate some on the nature of this
> relationship. In his words it is an important relationship, and I agree.
It
> is also a mysterious relationship. Has anyone solved the mystery?"
RICK:
I also would have liked to hear Struan comment further on this dichotomy of
Goods and what he perceived to be their fundemental relationship... and as
for the idea that the MoQ's relies on the concept of SOM for veracity, I
believe that it can sometimes be tricky to think about the MoQ without
contrasting it to SOM (there are good reasons for this, SOM is the dominant
metaphysics and so is the one which others should judged against, etc.) but
I believe this criticism could easily be answered if someone would just
write a short piece explaining the MoQ without any references to SOM... just
MoQ on its own merits...
It's all Good,
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:44 BST