Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Aug 07 2004 - 22:56:40 BST

  • Next message: Charles Roghair: "Re: MD DYNAMIC PRESSURE (?)"

    Hi Mark and David-M, and all

    On 7 Aug 2004 at 17:05, David Morey wrote:

    The key thing we need to get it here is the relationship
    of DQ to SQ and how SQ is independent of DQ
    much if the time. The rock rolls down the hill,
    DQ has withdrawn and does not intervene, this is
    the value/choice DQ has taken for there to be any SQ
    whatsoever. Think: how does SQ emerge from DQ?
    SQ is the same again, repetition, DQ has left the building!

    msh says:
    David, I'm not saying you're wrong here, as regards the MOQ. But
    notice how what you've written above is an EXACT parallel to what is
    said by SOM religionists when they try to answer the POE. God gets
    the ball rolling, then withdraws, leaving man and free will to commit
    or refrain from evil. God does not intervene, because he wants man
    to make choices and suffer (or enjoy) the consequences.

    But this response to the POE is insufficient. It accounts only for
    the suffering caused by man, not for the misery caused by the falling
    boulder. God knows the boulder will cause innocent suffering, but he
    refuses to stop it; therefore, he is not benevolent. If he's
    benevolent, but can't stop it, or doesn't know it will cause innocent
    suffering, then he is either not omnipotent or not omniscient. This
    is why the POE is the knock-out punch for theists who insist that
    their god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.

    Now, the MOQ may provide some wiggle room, and this is what interests
    me. But there does seem to be this rather large inconsistency: If
    everything derives from Quality, then immorality (suffering due to
    accident or natural calamity, evil) derives from Quality. If
    immorality is separate from Quality, then reality consists of more
    than Quality.

    This is why I find the idea of the dark side of Tao, as pointed out
    by Mark Maxwell, to be kind of intriguing.

    Anyway, I dunno.

    Any and all help here will be appreciated.

    Thanks,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
    everything." -- Henri Poincare'

    EARLIER:
    > Hi Mark M, and all.
    >
    > On 7 Aug 2004 at 8:11, Valuemetaphysics@aol.com wrote:
    > The problem of evil dissolves in the MOQ because evil becomes a
    > lower evolutionary pattern dominating a higher evolutionary
    pattern.
    > We may even avoid the term evil and say that there is an absence of
    > the Good?
    >
    > msh says:
    > I agree that, in the MOQ, the POE isn't a problem, since evil, as
    > commonly understood, doesn't exist. In fact, this is one of the
    > reasons I am attracted to the MOQ.
    >
    > But, notice, the word "evil" doesn't appear in my formulation of
    the
    > problem. "Suffering" takes its place. So, how about if instead of
    > "suffering" we use the phrase "immoral activity." When a boulder
    > breaks away from a hillside and crushes a child playing in the yard
    > below, we have an example of a lower pattern destroying a higher
    > pattern, which means an immoral action, according to the MOQ.
    >
    > So, now, the argument goes something like this:
    >
    > (P1) DQ is reality
    > (P2) DQ is maximum morality
    > (P3) Everything derives from DQ
    > (P4) Immoral actions occur
    >
    > It seems that we have to deny at least one of these premises. No?
    > If so, which?
    >
    >
    > Mark M:
    > However!
    > Apparently, Japanese zero pilots may be said to have been Tao dive
    > bombers. This may sound ridiculous - a dark side to the Tao! But
    the
    > Tao has no evolutionary aspect. Therefore, it is possible to
    observe
    > the Way at a lower evolutionary level - for the zero dive bomber,
    > this is Human conflict driven by biological and social patterns -
    > and to observe the Way at high evolutionary levels.
    >
    > msh says:
    > This is interesting. Do you believe, as Phaedrus in ZMM discovers,
    > that Quality and the Tao are one and the same? I think I do. But
    > does my version of the POE, above, suggest that there is an immoral
    > side to Quality/Tao? What you call the dark side?
    >
    > Thanks, Mark, for your thoughts.
    >
    > As usual, any and all comments will be appreciated.
    >
    > Best,
    > Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 07 2004 - 22:50:09 BST