> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horse [SMTP:horse@wasted.demon.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 7:30 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: RE: MD Bottom up Morality
>
> Horse and Y'all: I tried to but in earlier, but sent the post into
> cyber-oblivion by mistake. Don't ya hate that? I've been reading all the
> posts on morality and so here's my 2 cents.
>
> HORSE WROTE
> And this is what I am trying to get at. Good and Moral are separate. This
> does not mean that
> they are unrelated. We know an event is Moral because it can be no other
> way. But we're
> not using the term Moral in the 'traditional' sense but in the MoQ sense.
> Not only do we
> recognise Morality in a human-centred universe we have defined it and
> nailed it down.
> REALITY = MORALITY. The degree of Goodness of an event is
> experience-centred and
> contextual. Failure to recognise this results in conflict which can be
> seen in the recent (and
> many not-so-recent) exchanges.
>
> DMB responds to the last sentence first. I think most of the disagreement
> came from putting different facts into the front end of the MOQ analysis.
> I think there is some agreement as to how the "moral compass" works, as
> indicated by Platt's selection of quotes recently. The MOQ does not
> provide the facts of the world. We have to bring them to the MOQ. As jc's
> reviewer said, the MOQ is a new way of explaining the facts. Don't you
> think this same new pattern of interpetation indicates that "the degree of
> Goodness" is determined by its place in the hierarchy of levels? Oh sure,
> there is always the fifth moral code that says Dynamic is better than
> static, but the remaining codes refer to the levels of STATIC QUALITY. But
> I'm getting ahead of myself. I agree that Pirsig's use of the word
> morality goes far beyond what you call "moral in the traditional sense".
> In fact Pirsig talks about this distinction explicitly in chapter 13....
>
> >"The structuring of morality into evolutionary levels suddenly gives
> > shape to all kinds of blurred and confused moral ideas that are
> > floating around in our present cultural heritage. ... Like the stuff
> > Rigel was throwing at him this morning, the old Victorian morality.
> > That was entirely within one code, the social code. Phaedrus thought
> > that code was good as far as it went, but it didn't really go
> > anywhere. It didn't know its origins and it didn't know its own
> > destinations, and not knowing them it had to be exactly what it was:
> > hopelessly static, hopelessly stupid, a form of evil in itself." ...
>
>
> DMB
> See? Traditional morality is "entirely within one code, the social code."
> Pirsig's "evolutionary levels" says those values are good and important,
> but that they are less evolved than intellect. The social code is like a
> vice cop, which better than sheer biological quality, it liberates biology
> and is a more dynamic level, meaning a more evolved level, a level with
> greater freedom. But when those social values try to control the
> intellectual level, well, then the shit hits the fan.
>
>
> HORSE SAYS
> Let's try this on for size:
> When we (as humans) try to impose a static value system of Good onto a
> Dynamic reality
> we fail because, traditionally, Good is subservient to Truth and
> traditional moral systems
> look for Moral Truth and not what is Good. Good cannot be tied down
> because it is not
> static. Is it the case that what we are calling Good is strongly related
> to DQ although not DQ
> itself. As DQ is indefineable any attempt to nail the Good will meet with
> failure.
>
> DMB says..
> Again, I agree that traditional moral systems aren't going to cut it, and
> I'm not sure we can ever evaluate "Dynamic reality" simply because its
> beyond all static patterns. But your assertion that "good...is not static"
> seems to defy the whole idea of static quality. Is static quality not
> good?
> The question becomes "what kind of good is it?". In other words, what
> level of static quality is it? Like Lila, she has quality. She has some
> biological quality and very little else. That's her level and her kind of
> good. She doesn't look so hot compared to Martha Stewart, but there is
> always some quality. The trick is to find it and understand what kind it
> is.
>
> HORSE SAYS
> 'Universal Morality' = Reality (the Moral). Human
> morality/ethics = the Good. Good and Moral are co-dependent but not the
> same. I think that
> Good is a term that directly relates to Dynamic Quality and our ability to
> differentiate
> between what is Dynamic and what is Static and the degree of DQ perceived.
> But Good is
> also a Intellectual pattern of value which we impose on the Moral order of
> the Universe.
>
> DMB says
> No, good is not just an intellectual pattern. Pirsig's pithy conclusion,
> "good is a noun", seems to indicate that good is an all-pervasive thing
> and not limited to one level. And when DQ is perceived, well, now you're
> talking about the mystical experience. An event that's always more than
> good, but very tough to squeeze down into intellectual static patterns.
> But I think you're getting at the fifth moral code, which is the toughest,
> the least certain. It takes time to tell. You may recall that the four
> other codes are discussed using words like "forever" and "absolutely".
> These are the codes that describe the relations between levels of static
> good and so we get very clear ccut answers like the germ and the patient.
> (When you changed the patient into the victim of suicide-by-disease you
> changed the whole question, but not the answer to the original question.)
> The first four moral codes are about preserving static patterns. But the
> fifth moral code is different precisely because it is about evolution and
> growth. Its about that which is not yet a static pattern. Or rather, in
> the real world, its a matter of seeing which of the many new things will
> last into the long run. Only time can tell. Its easy to see this in terms
> of biological evolution. Some species are short lived. Some cultures last
> longer than others. Some ideas fade away and never catch on. Who can
> predict the future?
>
> HORSE SAYS
> I think this may be where traditional terminology and MoQ terminology
> conflict. Where the
> MoQ defines Reality (the Universe) as inherently moral it does not follow
> that Reality is
> inherently good IN HUMAN TERMS. Traditional morality based on Moral Truth
> applies the
> principle of absoluteness - an unchanging and immutable Good. I do not
> believe this is so in
> MoQ terms.
>
> DMB says
> Um, speaking of terminology... I think your instinct to make a distinction
> between traditional morality and the MOQ's use of the word is right on,
> but I find your use of "Good and Moral" awfully confusing. Pirsig uses
> those words too and I'm not sure if you two have exactly the same thing in
> mind. Its a little mind-boggling. We've got 5 codes, 4 levels, and the
> static Dynamic split. That's plenty. We can still have this same
> discussion in those terms and it would have the advantage of keeping us
> all on the same page, so to speak.
>
> Thanks for your time. DMB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 - 16:03:16 BST