From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 16:06:20 BST
MSH wrote:
___________________
Rather than using the word "ego," which gets me thinking along Freudian
lines, I'd like to talk in terms of the Buddhist's small-self Big Self
distinction. At this point in my own struggle along the path, I don't think
it's possible to annihilate the small self; I do think it is possible to
some extent to put the small self in cold storage while making decisions
regarding our actions.
__________________
Hi Mark. When I use the word 'ego' I do mean the Buddhist small self, not
the Freudian ego. I should have been more clear. If Buddhism intends
annihilation of the small self I misunderstand the little I know. The ego
does have a purpose, survival of the self. The Big self is not so concerned
with that. So, again there is a both / and balance. What we have done is
assume the ego is the total self; let the secretary take over and left the
boss on indefinite vacation. So, if I understand things correctly, it's a
matter of harmonizing the small and Big selves into an integrated whole, not
utterly destroying the ego. This integration parallels the Sage's ability
to hold both direct experience of the Whole and the world of maya in his
mind at the same time. Sorry I don't have the correct terminology for this.
MSH:
____________
As for how I talk about intentionality, I don't. I'm sticking to what I
said in the previous post. I think it's impossible to know anyone's
intentions, other than our own. However, although we cannot know them, we
can make reasonable inferences about infer other people's intentions based
on their actions.
____________
In reading your response I see where we miscommunicated. You have been
talking about the difficulty of discerning someone else's intentions about a
particular action after the action occurs from outside observation. That is
problematic I agree. But we can work with intention easier on the other end
prior to the action by training etc. Also, my focus is self-intention, what
is generally under my control, as the area to work on for improvement.
MSH:
_____________
steve:
Regardless, unless one is omnipotent, what some patterns will value given
intentional input cannot be foreseen. What could be foreseen, or, what a
'prudent' adult is expected to foresee, we can hold a person accountable
for. What this person (sorry, I'm sticking with the individual as the
smallest pattern of agency) cannot be held accountable for is what did occur
due to intention but an average prudent person would not have foreseen.
msh:
I don't think I disagree here, but maybe it will help me understand if you
provide an example illustrating your last sentence, above. It sounds like
you're saying that someone who acts with good intentions cannot be held
accountable for the unforeseeable bad effects of his actions. Is it your
contention that someone acting with bad intentions should be held
accountable in the same circumstances?
_______________
Accountability and the assumed knowledge of a prudent adult before the law
has more to do with a minimal assumed reasoning ability given the privileges
of the law. IOW, it is expected that one who holds a driver's license
understands physics enough to know that hitting a pedestrian with a car will
in fact cause major injury to the pedestrian. It is expected that a prudent
person will value human life and safety above an animal's, so therefore, if
the situation arises, a prudent driver will not swerve to miss the animal
knowing full well that a person is in the path of the swerve. So, without
knowing the intention of the individual per se, we assume what a minimal
level of moral valuation ought to be for the privilege of having a driver's
license and hold all drivers responsible to that model. If further evidence
suggests a more heinous intention such as purposefully running down the
pedestrian, then further accusations follow, but only with more evidence.
I agree we cannot 'know' with certainty the specific intentions of any
individual for any given act. Intentionality (such as in conspiracy) is
assumed given a sufficient body of evidence. If the consequences of follow
through are quite serious (such as a car bomb) we might work harder at
'arresting' someone prior to the act. With less serious consequences
society only takes action after the act. There cannot be an overriding
Kantian type categorical imperative that covers each and every occurrence.
We need to allow for much variability in reality don't you think?
MSH:
________________
I'm not sure we do [need to consider intentions as well as acts, SM]. But
the question we're wrestling with here is, if we do need to verify the
intentions of others, how do we do it?
________________
See the above. I don't think we can verify anyone's intentions
specifically. But if the threat to society is sufficient we can legitimize
certain assumptions about intentionality (with evidence). This is a
complicated area often misused.
What I was more interested in was not the law end of things, but generating
good intentions backed by good reasoning in the first place. The law is the
band-aid, whether it utilizes intentionality or not. In a sense, we are
already too late.
What I mean by the other end of things is understanding what creates
character (moral habit) in the first place. This may not be quite so
dramatic as cops and robbers but I propose it has a much more lasting effect
and is a better use of resources (if we are talking about government
programs). Practically, both ends should be addressed as I said before.
MSH:
______________
steve:
Learn what Quality is and apply it to your life, education of your
young ones, and how you deal with others.
msh:
Nothing to disagree with here. This is in line with my own ideas of
our responsibility to remove from our environments all physical and
psychological impediments to our becoming fully-realized human
beings. Though it's cooled off, Sam Norton and I have a discussion
going about this very thing. (Where are you Sam? I miss your
rational conservatism.)
________________
Amazing. My version goes something like this: Understanding that each
moral agent must choose virtue for his/herself we (as a society or as
individuals) should, as our moral duty, modify the environment s best we can
to be conducive to that choosing of virtue. Now, I realize the problem the
word 'virtue' has with some MOQers, so just replace virtue with aretê. What
this program entails is both a recognition of agency and the individual's
responsibility and that, given a moral development scheme (such as Maslow's
hierarchy of needs), many folks may not be at the stage in development where
they are enabled to make that choice due to environmental concerns
(starving, for example). This requires elements of both traditional liberal
and conservative ideology applied in a much more dynamic fashion to the
specific individual in the specific situation. I don't care for politics
much, as discussion in that area usually degenerates into unexamined
recitation of very static positions. Given that reality is dynamic, we need
a both / and liberal sometimes and conservative other times approach.
Further, I believe in working with character and the individual takes
precedence for long-term quality. That is why my strong reaction to a
(seemingly) denial of the individual.
I miss Sam too.
Mark, I suggested you look at psychological egoism as just a staring point.
It first has to be defeated, or morality has no meaning at all.
Psychological egoism represents one pole of a dichotomy: complete
selfishness. The other pole is denial of morally agency, ie the self,
totally. I think you've cleared that up. What's left is the integrated
correct balance of little self / Big self. The mature moral agent has
integrated the Whole with maya, self-concern with other concern. This is a
better explanation of 'integrity' rather than some unexamined version of
honesty don't you think? It also meshes nicely with the harmony / coherence
idea of mutually reinforcing stable patterns.
Thanks Mark. I look forward to our continued dialogue.
Live well,
Steve
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 Jul 07 2005 - 16:37:38 BST