Hello everyone
Jonathan Marder wrote:
>
> Hello everyone especially Platt, Glove, David B., Clark, Walter and whoever
> else ...
>
> XACTO
> > Please respond to the above if you wish to go further (No one seems to
> think
> > I have anything worthwhile to say anyway).
> Jonathan:
> Tell me about it ...
>
> JONATHAN (12 Nov 1999) Re: Moral compass
> >>PLATT's latest post raises questions about that yardstick:
> >>Still, I'm far from satisfied with the alternative proposed by Jonathan
> >>and others about relying on man's innate moral sense to guide us,
> >>the problem being how to explain Mao, Stalin, and Hitler not to
> >>mention Ghengis Kahn, Caligula and the priests of the Spanish
> >>Inquisition.
> >
> >That's a fair objection Platt, and one that I think worth pursuing.
> >I am going to stand by that "innate moral sense", but accept the
> >challenge of explaining how it sometimes fails to prevent evil. That's
> >not for this post - I need more time to think about how to present it.
> >
>
> That's what I wrote over 2 weeks ago, and I see that no-one has been holding
> their breath.
Hi Jonathan and xacto
I can identify with your feelings of being unappreciated. Many times
I've put hours into a post only to find it met with derision, or even
worse, silence. I tell myself that I am not writing for others, only for
myself. Still, I can't help but wonder if its worth it. An aside; A few
months ago a former LS member wrote and told me how much he enjoyed one
of my very first posts to TLS, from well over a year ago. One that I had
completely forgotten about and one that garnered no response whatsoever
when submitted. He even invented a new word for what I pointed out in
that email. So I can only say to those who feel unappreciated and
ignored, don't. Someone is reading what you write even if that's not
readily apparent.
Jonathan:
> To put it bluntly, nobody has really produced a satisfactory definition of
> what morality actually is.
Dan:
Jonathan, if Quality and morality are identical, and Quality cannot be
defined, no wonder we are having problems defining morality!
Jonathan:
> The problem is exacerbated because Pirsig contradicts himself. On the one
> hand he insists that patterns, morals and values are all synonymous. On the
> other hand, he divides up value patterns into 4 levels, and divides morals
> up into 5 orders:
> 1. chaos vs. inorganic
> 2. inorganic vs. bio.
> 3. bio. vs. soc
> 4. soc. vs. intellectual
> 5. DQ vs SQ
>
> Maybe I'm being pedantic, but 4 doesn't equal 5, and this contradicts the
> value=moral equation.
Jonathan, no, I do not feel you're being pedantic at all. Pirsig writes:
"Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of
conflicting patterns of values." (pg. 188, teal paperback)
Each static quality level has its own moral code and 5 orders you list I
interpret as moral conflicts resulting from those four moral codes.
Morality/Quality are synonymous, patterns of value are static, while
Quality/morality also entail Dynamic Quality, which "is not found in any
encyclopedia". I agree Pirsig is a bit ambiguous on this.
Jonathan:
> Thus, I think we have to proceed very carefully from the ground up, and not
> assume that Lila has all the answers.
Agreed.
>
> Many months ago, I stated that the morality that concerns me is the morality
> that determines how human beings act (more specifically, how *I* should
> act). I don't know if it is more moral for a lion to feed on a lamb or lie
> down with it - I'm neither a lion nor a lamb. However, I can say that it
> would be a mistake to live our lives expecting lions to peacefully lie down
> with lambs. Morality must go hand-in-hand with nature.
>
> KEN has been our main advocate of looking at the natural evolution of the
> universe as a moral process, starting with the Big Bang. . .
>
> WALTER has raised problems with Ken's ideas:
> >Ken,
> >Though I always symphatized with your down-to-earth view of
> >the MoQ, emphasizing the evolutionary way of Quality, I very
> >much disagree with you on that sentience stopped the universe
> >of being a moral universe.
> >
> >It somehow seems strange to me. You start of with the Big Bang,
> >that way taking a very broad perspective on Morality. It includes
> >everything in the universe: atoms, stars, galaxies, planets with,
> >who knows, maybe even other lifeforms.
> >You end however, with a very narrow perspective on Morality, namely
> >one of a man who is dissappointed in (the sentience of) human kind
> >for what it is capable of.
> >
> >My take on the damage sentience can do, is this:
> >Morality is dependent on perspectives and therefore I agree with you
> >using the term 'universal morality' and making a distinction between
> >that and human morality (or ethics).
> Jonathan:
> The way I see this is as follows: The whole Big Bang, expanding universe
> scenario is a human viewpoint. This is how man has come to view his world,
> but at different time things were seen differently. The ABSOLUTE reality may
> well exist without man, but the reality we KNOW requires our presence to
> KNOW it. This to me is the background to that expression "Man is the
> Measure" which Pirsig quoted in ZAMM.
Dan:
I am currently reading a wonderful book called "Galileo's Daughter" by
Dava Sobel, based on Galileo's correspondence with his eldest daughter.
I highly recommend it. It tells of his struggles, not only to understand
Universe around him, but of attempting to go against conventional wisdom
and instilled cultural values in his society when he found it in
conflict with his observations. Galileo sought what was RighT over what
was true. He was lucky though. Just a few decades before they burned
Bruno at the stake for similar heresies.
The Big Bang? It's become apparent to me that many researchers are no
longer satisfied with B.B. as a foundation for physics. In my opinion,
though I am not really qualified to judge, B.B. has become as difficult
a dogma to overcome as earth-centered Universe was for Galileo to
overcome.
>
> Thus, my take on human-centred morality is as follows: we humans act in
> accordance with what we perceive to be the natural course of the universe.
> At the same time, our decisions are part of that natural course. We perceive
> a world in which our actions have consequences, and thus perceive that we
> have free choice. On the other hand, we have pursued the idea of a
> deterministic universe to the extent that the idea of free choice is
> contradicted (the free choice platypus). Thus, modern man is totally
> confused and has a hard time accepting the moral links between choices,
> consequences and responsibility.
>
> Morality is all about extrapolation and prediction: We can use our faculties
> (including intellect) to extrapolate to a "moral outcome" that can only be
> involved by a tortuous path. Giving a patient poisonous drugs may seem
> immoral to the primitive mind, but moral when considered as a
> chemotherapeutic cure for cancer. The only judgement involved is judgement
> of the end result, and I don't consider that an "intellectual" judgement,
> but a value judgement that any child could make. Saving life is good! Peace
> and harmony are good.
Dan:
In my opinion, any judgment of an end result not immediately apparent is
preconditioned by intellect patterns of value. Speaking of unappreciated
posts, I brought this up many moons ago when I wrote of Wolfgang
Köhler's work with apes and chimpanzees. Intellect patterns of values
are not limited to humans but a fundamental moral part of Universe. I
incorporated this post into a paper called "Complementary and MOQ" which
resides here if anyone is interested:
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Folse8.html
> Jonathan:
> The evil men of history were not necessarily evil because they were striving
> for hell on earth. They sought some sort of heaven on earth, but they chose
> a wrong path with tragic results. (Were they to stand trial, the defence
> would inevitably be that they were misunderstood and prevented from
> achieving the good that they sought).
Dan:
It seems to me what we call "evil" is reliance upon predatory behavior
over symbiosis. Ghandi and Martin Luther King differ from Hitler and
Ghengis Kahn not just because they were good and Hitler and Kahn were
evil, but rather they recognized higher virtue in renouncing predatory
behavior in favor of Good for all. Not just for all humanity, but all
Universe. People like Ghandi and King state: Instead of taking what's
yours by force and calling it mine, let's combine what we have and
recognize greater value created than might be expected by simple
addition. That's what synergy is all about.
>
> I still see this morality topic as something terribly difficult, and hope we
> can make some real progress.
>
> Is anyone still thinking about this?
I even dream about it! :)
Dan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST