From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2005 - 04:26:18 GMT
Platt)As I see it, the "principle of rightness" means advancing moral
evolution,
which means lifting as many of your thoughts as possible into the logical
intellectual level as opposed to living your life guided by your
irrational emotions or by what society demands of you.
Chin)Excellent.
Platt continues)Some here consider
mystic "enlightenment" to be the way forward, but have yet to spell out
what that path will lead to much less what mysticism is other than the
absence of thought.
Chin)Mysticism is simply the currently unexplainable. Enlightenment would be
the unexplainable understood.
Think of all the isms we have created, each to explain reality and
knowledge. Think of all the scientific and metaphysical theories. Think of
all the religious and spritiual theories. We have, since the early Greeks,
and quite likely even before then looked for the words to describe our
thoughts or intuition. Mind and matter, subject and object, nature and the
cosmos, science and astrology, realism and idealism are all
dialectic/thetorical concepts; then you split these terms into even more
Westerm philosophical isms to explain what Eastern philosophy recognizes as
unexplainable, but still splits into dualisms when trying to come to terms
with the unexplainable.
If we are all nothing but a part of a whole, and all this explains our
partial understanding of the whole, what could possibly prepare us to
explain the whole if in a flash of light it was revealed to us? You might
think that even mystical enlightenment can only offer a partial
understanding, but closer than we managed prior to the enlightenment. What
could possibly prepare us to put into words what even a partial
understanding of all we have never been able to come to terms with?
It would come a bit difficult to explain mystical enlightenment even if you
had been enlightened to the highest degree, must less not being capable of
being enlightened to the highest level.
Quality thought to Quality action is nothing but preperation for what is to
come. Whether it is in the mind or the cosmos doesn't really matter. All
that matters is that you don't get stuck into belief that we have already
answered the questions; or even worse, someone else has.
In the meantime, we can make value judgements and Quality decisions.
Just some thoughts.
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: MD Universal Moral Standards
> Hi Ham,
>
> > You said:
> > > I see you have a scale of moral values relative to your personal self-
> > > interest. But then you switch gears and proclaim a universal
value--the
> > > sanctity of human life.
>
> > The sanctity of human life is an absolute principle, yes; but not
because I
> > "proclaim" it so.
>
> Well then, because it . . .? I presume your essentialist philosophy can
> complete the sentence, but I must have missed that part. Can you briefly
> summarize how your philosophy concludes that human life is holy? Is it
> because we humans are a species of Essence itself, and Essence by
> definition is sacred?
>
> > > But, suppose I and others don't subscribe to your belief in your
> > > universal "sanctity of man?" What then?
>
> > Then, it appears that neither of us will enjoy the morality we both
want.
>
> As I look around the world, I don't see much morality to enjoy, especially
> coming out of the Middle East in the form of Bin Laden's interpretation of
> the Koran.
>
> > It would seem that Pirsig's moral structure isn't winning the battle,
> > either. The jackass prevails. Do you really think that universal
> > comprehension and acceptance of the MoQ would raise the level of
morality
> > in the world?
>
> Yes, but it will be a long time coming. The MOQ.org website is just a
> beginning ripple.
>
> > > But, it's interesting that your statement is based on the premise that
> > > there is "right and wrong" which looks like a universal moral standard
to
> > > me from my seat here in the balcony.
> >
> > You're really stuck on that word "universal", aren't you? And you had
me
> > thinking you were an individualist! Why don't you get down off the
balcony
> > and tell me why you are so averse to moral relativism? Maybe we can
cure
> > that phobia.
>
> I'm adverse for the simple reason that without universal moral standards,
your
> moral standard and mine and the guy's over there behind the tree each
carry
> equal weight with the result that all of us are good if we say so, no
matter
> what. As we have learned the hard way from history, any evil can be
> rationalized as good. That's the problem. (Now I'll climb down from my
> pedestal and return to the balcony.)
>
> > > What I meant to convey was that without universal moral
> > > standards, who is to say that anything is right or wrong, or if they
do
> > > say it, why should we pay any attention?
> >
> > I suppose there will still be a moral consensus, a.world court, and a
civil
> > rights union, among other 'authorities' to rule on behavior, until man
is
> > wise enough to realize his essential nature and accept personal
> > responsibility for his wrongdoings.
>
> When you say "wrongdoings," you seem to be invoking some sort of universal
> moral principle. In any case, I wouldn't want to have my morality
> determined by majority vote.
>
> > > As for man's role in the universe, I believe he is here to make the
> > > universe better than it was or would be without him, guided by the
> > > principle of rightness. By understanding the universe's moral
structure,
> > > man is better able to accomplish that purpose.
> >
> > I was about to ask, who is to tell us what is "better", until you
mentioned
> > "the principle of rightness". What, exactly, is that? I must have
missed
> > that principle in my reading of Pirsig.
>
> As I see it, the "principle of rightness" means advancing moral evolution,
> which means lifting as many of your thoughts as possible into the logical
> intellectual level as opposed to living your life guided by your
> irrational emotions or by what society demands of you. Some here consider
> mystic "enlightenment" to be the way forward, but have yet to spell out
> what that path will lead to much less what mysticism is other than the
> absence of thought.
>
> Does my answer make any sense to you?
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Thu Jan 06 2005 - 05:17:10 GMT