From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 00:20:44 GMT
On Thursday 24 February 2005 2"41 PM Plat writes to Marsha and All:
[Platt] So what is it to be? Truth and morality based on experience and
reason,
i.e., what is commonly thought of as comprising the intellectual level, or
truth and morality founded on personal feelings of liking and not liking
that bubble up from the biological level? Or, is some combination
workable?
[Platt] I look to the group for answers. The nihilistic answer, that
existence is
senseless and useless, doesn't "feel right" to me.
Hi Platt, Marsha and All:
Platt your poem was searing! Thanks.
IMO 'Feelings' is a word much open to variable interpretations. I think of
the levels of evolution as proposed by Pirsig and ways to discuss them in
more precise terms. All levels described by Pirsig have evolved from the
inorganic level through three barriers or boundaries. They all originate in
the inorganic level.
The inorganic level is like variations in gravity. Something evolves from
gravity becoming another level. I think purpose best describes the first
break through gravity. The movement to eat evolves the organic level. An
interpretant of that purpose I call 'sensation'. The organic level is like
variations in purpose.
Something evolves from 'purpose' becoming another level. I think 'existence'
best describes that first break through purpose. The movement to order
evolves the social level. Mother, father, child are interpretants of that
existence I call 'emotion'. The social level is ordered by a center of
gravity in existence. She is president. The social level has its center of
gravity in interpretations of the order of existence. The nose knows!
Something evolves from 'existence' becoming another level. I think
unfinished s/o describes that first break through existence. Creation in the
intellectual order flows from the sense of 'unfinished', I want to do more.
Creation has its center of gravity in thoughts through the sense of
'unfinished'. Order leads to creation by awareness.
Morality is based on a proper ordering of actions of gravity, purpose,
order, creation. Sensations, feelings and thoughts are interpretants of
morality. IMO truth and morality as either from experience and reason i.e.,
what is commonly thought of as comprising the intellectual level, or founded
on personal feelings of liking and not liking that bubble up from the
biological level is unanswerable.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: MD Nihilism
> Hi Marsha, All:
>
> Marsha writes:
>> But in the end, it will be
>> my gut, not words that will determine the next step.
>
> And:
>> Deep in my bones I know there is no answer, there never was a answer and
>> there never will be an answer.
>
> It appears that you rely on your gut and your bones to tell you what's
> true and what's right. In other words, your feelings guide your beliefs.
>
> Pirsig makes it clear that feelings reside in and emerge from the
> biological level, not the social or intellectual levels. "In the MOQ
> feeling corresponds to biological quality." (Copleston notation).
>
> In Lila, Pirsig says feelings perceive quality. "There was a something
> wrong, something wrong, something wrong feeling like a buzzer in the back
> of his mind. It wasn't just his imagination. It was real. It was a primary
> perception of negative quality." (Lila, 20)
>
> In his SODV paper, Pirsig talks about our "sense of value, of liking and
> disliking" as a "primary sense." This sense seems to be a gut feeling more
> than anything else.
>
> Further, if one agrees with Pirsig's determination of truth as being a
> matter of personal taste, like choosing paintings in an art gallery, then
> one's feelings rule.
>
> Contrast this with statement in Chap. 8 of Lila: "The tests of truth are
> logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of
> explanation." No mention of feelings here.
>
> And, at the root of the MOQ he proposes a system of rational moral
> guidelines, as opposed to a morality based on feelings: "But what's not so
> obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is
> absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient. This
> is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to some
> doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all cultures.
> It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a moral pattern of
> reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of
> reason." (Lila, 13)
>
> So what is it to be? Truth and morality based on experience and reason,
> i.e., what is commonly thought of as comprising the intellectual level, or
> truth and morality founded on personal feelings of liking and not liking
> that bubble up from the biological level? Or, is some combination
> workable?
>
> I look to the group for answers. The nihilistic answer, that existence is
> senseless and useless, doesn't "feel right" to me.
>
> Best,
> 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 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 00:22:19 GMT