JONATHAN FINDS MEANING IN THE MORAL MESS
In this post I reply to Horse and reassure him that there is some
valuable content
to be digested from the recent apparent chaos (BTW chaos is a
perception,
not an objective property)
=================================
Hi Squad,
The Cavalry Arrives! :-)
Horse writes:-
>What's going on? I've only been away for a couple of weeks and come
back to
>complete and utter chaos!
Welcome back Horse. I can imagine what this discussion must look like
after your extended break. We are talking about morality, always a topic
to arouse the passions.
Diana opened the topic with the following:-
<<<<"We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason. We can
now
deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral arguments with
greater precision than before." [quoted from Lila]
These are bold claims indeed, but are they justified?
>>>>
I think it is pretty clear that few of us are sufficiently satisfied
with Lila to let it be the last word.
I've tried to logically expose contradictions and present my objections.
Bodvar has proclaimed himself the guardian of MoQ orthodoxy. Donny has
provided some excellent perspectives underlining the centrality of
Quality ...
>Quality/care = what leades to at-one-ment.
Others have entered the fray, and I think we made some good progress.
But what started as a Soccer game changed when the Crazy Celt picked up
the ball and ran in his rages of NAKED passion that leaves us
left-brainers baffled.
A big thank-you to RICK for picking up the pieces:-
<<<<However, I don't think as many of these challenges [to MoQ] have
been made as it
now seems(of course I can't know what on before I got here). In
Fintan's
case I feel nothing has been rearranged... only renamed. [snip]
Ultimately, we all still appear to be in agreement.
There is only one problem here: Semantics.
>>>>
Let me support Ricks conciliatory words by quoting from my 15th Nov
reply to Bo:-
<<<<It is significant that you bring up the CONFLICT allusion. This
dialectical framework makes it inevitable. That's what SOM creates -
opposites and CONFLICT. Marxism is an extreme example of the dialectic
at work. As humans, we have instinctive ability to transcend these
conflicts and achieve harmony. Pirsig didn't discover this, but he
championed it, giving it the name QUALITY.
>>>>
Horse:-
<<<<[snip]
INTELLECT
SOCIETY
MIND
BIOLOGY
INORGANIC/CHEMICAL
The main problem with the above is the idea of an arbitrary level of
Mind between
Biology and Society. There seems too have been little attempt to define
what is
meant by the term 'Mind' in this particular context. One attempt was
along the
lines of the ability to recognise others of the same type. This idea,
along with the
ability to recognise food, react to light etc. is little more than
pattern recognition
and/or instinctual biological behaviour.
>>>>
Horse, you hastily use the words "little more" to dismiss an idea
(remember "Quality is 'just' anything you like" in ZAMM?). Pattern
recognition is the whole of reality. In the May SOM discussion Fintan
defined the SO split as Pattern vs. Recognition. QUALITY FIRST means
that this split is secondary.
Horse continues:-
<<<<Another, more reasonable, idea is that this
form of 'Mind' is another word for Brain. Whichever way we look at it,
'Mind' in this
sense is a red herring and can be dumped without further ado. This
leaves the
original structure laid out in Lila intact and unless someone can show a
reasoned
argument to re-jig these levels, from an evolutionary point of view,
there is no point
in arguing over it.
>>>>
I have little argument on this
FINTAN:
>"Intellect has usurped the role of GOD OVER SOCIETY."
It seems to me that Fintan objects to one particular kind of intellect.
Even Bodvar seems to understand that going by his post of 5th November
where he wrote:-
>Intellect is the "enemy" that attacks us! Not just pompous academics,
>but the intellectual part of existence - of ourselves!.
My own comment on that (subsequently repeated many
times in my replies to Bodvar):-
>Right on Bodvar! The intellect which ignores gut instinct can lead one
>on a very long path away from morality.
Fintan is objecting to pure left-brain intellect - the sort which
founded and dominates the Church of Reason.
To judge morality on that sort of half-brain intellect is half assed.
Intellect in the RighT relationship to Society needs to be much more.
Let me finish by responding to a comment of Ricks:-
>After all, it's a common rhetorical proof that
>the source of a message has nothing to do
>with its accuracy (see ZAMM for details).
The only dialogue of Plato I ever read was parts of Phaedrus, where
Phaedrus presents the argument that the lover is not to be trusted
because his motives are clouded by passion. Socrates goes on to make two
pompous speeches, one in support and one against (proving that there are
"lies, damn lies, and the dialectic"). Every court judge and juror knows
that the source of the message (i.e. the possible motives of the
witness) has EVERYTHING to do with its veracity. The important thing is
to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant factors. IMHO opinion,
this is the whole point of "scientific method" versus say religion. The
"mumbo-jumbo" which dominated the ancient mythos is the irrelevant. But
MoQ says that the modern mythos has inadvertently excluded some of the
relevant.
A GOOD day to us all,
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST