Hi Platt,
You wrote:
> Can you cite others who claim that morality is reality?
Er, good point there. I must admit that I'm biased in my thinking and
readings in philosophy towards exploring the assumption that
consciousness is a (or 'the') primary aspect of reality and the
universe. I haven't come to the moral, ethical part yet! Incidentally I
followed the Pim Fortuyn thread a bit (as a Dutchman), but I didn't add
a post not because I don't have an opinion, but because I think opinions
are relative and not primary. (I think that's one of the main reasons
why I like ZaMM more than Lila!). In my discussions with friends about
politics and society and such matters, I nearly always take the view
that, for instance in the case on violence, we should look at biological
evolution and learn from the fact that violence and aggression is kind
of imprinted in our constitution. I also then add that our
self-consciousness and awareness of local, national and global violence
(wars, aggression on the street, terrorism) in this information (t.v.,
books, internet) age, is something entirely new in evolution, and then
tend to end with a big question-mark as to the answer(s) to the problem
of violence... Similarily, I regard habit and coincidence in individual
lives often as THE factors influencing the moral attitude of a person.
Thus, The past as it is, creates a rather coincidental and relative
moral. Implicitely, that always biases my thinking about moral. 'Need we
ask others, Phaedrus, what is good?' (approximate quote) says the quote
at the beginning of ZaMM. Pirsig takes this as a crucial point in his
chautauqua in his first book, seperated by so many years with his second
book, in which he deliberately puts this point overboard, and formulates
a theory (or methaphysics) by which you should be able to judge
intellectually what is good: Social above biological, intellectual above
social, etc. I think these are axioms or assumptions, that are NOT
inherent in his analysis of Dynamic Quality.
I'm a bit at a loss now. I've described above my so far rather implicit
attitude towards many things, and Pirsigs books. But I see the necessity
of having a consensus about morality in society. If every person judges
by himself what is good, than we can not strive towards common goals
with each other. Taking a stand in the issue of the friction between the
experience of an individual and the role of society, is a very difficult
one for me. (Maybe I should read Lila again...)
But to come back to your question, Nishida and Zohar (The Quantum Self,
The Quantum Society, lately with her husband Spiritual Intelligence) all
discuss morality to a large extent.
Okay, thanks for your remark. Does have an impulse in my thoughts...
Greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:16 BST