From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 23:19:45 BST
Hi August,
Do you think people voted for Bush or Gore randomly? Except for a few
hundred elderly Florida voters in one district, every voter's choice had
some reason for it: it was based on their viewpoints and politics. If a
choice had a reason and wasn't random, then it was DETERMINED by the reason.
Everything that happens happens for a reason, including people's choices.
The reasons for everything are found in morality. And morality preceeds us.
We can't escape previous history or absolve ourselves from future history.
Humans didn't choose morality as a system to govern ourselves, morality
chose humans and created humans and government and systems and everything.
The sort of morality you are talking about colloquially is better described
as ethics or prudence, and it isn't really morality at all. There has been
a tragic and dangerous loss of meaning to the word 'morality', which is why
I am so hopeful about the MoQ, which restores sovereignity and precedence to
the word (or, the Word).
Johnny
>From: August West <augustwestd@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Free Will
>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Johnny, Pi, All,
>Pirsig says in Zen and the Art... that when you break
>everything in the universe down to its simplest form
>then you get mind, matter, and quality.
>
>Human choice and the choices that lightning makes to
>follow its path of least resistance are different....
>very different. Humans have a choice to chose. That
>is, an individual has a choice to decide what course
>they chose. I can chose to be moral, I can chose to
>think, I can chose to act on wim, I can chose to vote
>for someone other than Bush, Bush can chose to ignore
>the fact that he lost the election and be my president
>anyway. Bush can chose to go to war, or that it is
>not a good time. Humans have no automatic course of
>action, this is a property (quality) of a human.
>Johnny, here is an example:
>1. People in the United States had to choose a
>president, they did this by voting.
>2. Some people voted for Gore, they thought this would
>bring the best quality for the country.
>3. Some people voted for Bush, they thought this would
>bring the best quality for the country.
>4. Gore won.
>5. Bush .. I don't wanna say... (Leo Strauss.. the
>GOP's philosopher, should check it out.. fricken
>scary!)
>
>Lightning, has a set "plan of action". It cannot
>chose how it will chose, it can only chose what its
>properties dictate it chose, the path of least
>resistance.
>
>Humans and Nature do interact with quality in differnt
>ways.
>
>Humans chose morality as a system to govern themselves
>because of our choice to chose properties (quality),
>which are not automatic, like lightning's, for
>example. We, as individuals, and as humans chose to
>obey or not to obey.
>
>-August
>
>--- johnny moral <johnnymoral@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Pi and August,
> >
> > >The point you bring up about "free will" deserves a
> > new thread because it
> > >is too much of a tangent. In short, as I understand
> > it, under MOQ, human
> > >choice and the choices a lightning makes are not
> > very different. Just
> > >because we can predict path of a lightining bolt
> > with some accuracy does
> > >not imply that it does not have a choice. A
> > lightining bolt "chooses" a
> > >path of highest quality and so do each of us. But
> > let us start a new
> > >thread if anyone would like to examine this tangent
> > in more detail.
> >
> > While I don't think free will is tangential to a
> > "man-made or natural?"
> > thread at all, I'm very happy to start a thread
> > about this. I think this
> > topic is misunderstood a lot here, and that means
> > morality is misunderstood
> > and belittled. Understanding that what we choose to
> > do is dependent on
> > Quality (aka Morality, Reality) is key to properly
> > respecting quality and
> > morality. Believing in free will insults Quality
> > and removes yourself from
> > history.
> >
> > I think you are right Pi that lightning and human
> > choices are not different.
> > They both choose the path of highest perceived
> > quality at the moment of
> > choosing. Note though, that what they perceive is
> > dependent on the quality,
> > not on them (the quality creates the perceiver and
> > the perceived). Thus, at
> > the moment of choosing, they are both bound to
> > choose the path that quality
> > (morality) presents to them. Lightning can not
> > choose any path but the one
> > that appears best, and neither can we. We can
> > deliberate longer than
> > lightning, but in the final analysis, the action
> > that we do is always what
> > appears best, it is what we want to do most at that
> > moment.
> >
> > I recommend Jonathan Edwards (or books about him) as
> > he is the brightest
> > light on the subject, and absolutely up to date and
> > compatible with the MoQ.
> > I'm going to type in some excerpts from some books
> > about him (James
> > Carse's in particular, Sang Hyun Lee's also) soon
> > that ought to leave
> > MoQ'ers mouths agape.
> >
> > BTW, it's Edwards 300th birthday this year! I think
> > I will try to attend
> > this symposium:
> >
> > http://www.yale.edu/wje/html/JE-300.html
> >
> > Johnny
> >
> > >Hi August,
> > >
> > >Thanks for bringing up that example. What I am
> > trying to point out is that
> > >the tree is *not* the same whether you see it or
> > not! It is completely
> > >dependent on the viewer. I believe it was in LILA
> > where Pirsig mentioned
> > >that when we blink, the reason we don't think that
> > the world has ended is
> > >because of the "continuation" static intellectual
> > pattern that we have
> > >adopted. Your tree example is very similar. One
> > other example I would like
> > >to point out from Pirsig is from zmm. Recall his
> > rant about gravity not
> > >existing before Newton coined the term and
> > developed the theory. I would
> > >like to invite you to explain this example using
> > your theory of
> > >perception.
> > >
> > >The point you bring up about "free will" deserves a
> > new thread because it
> > >is too much of a tangent. In short, as I understand
> > it, under MOQ, human
> > >choice and the choices a lightning makes are not
> > very different. Just
> > >because we can predict path of a lightining bolt
> > with some accuracy does
> > >not imply that it does not have a choice. A
> > lightining bolt "chooses" a
> > >path of highest quality and so do each of us. But
> > let us start a new
> > >thread if anyone would like to examine this tangent
> > in more detail.
> > >
> > >Take care,
> > >
> > >- Pi
> > >
> > >
> > >On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, August West wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pi
> > > >
> > > > Even if I have never seen a tree; its shape and
> > > > structure is the same whether I personally, as
> > an
> > > > individual have seen it or not. Perception is
> > > > relative to an individual, just as choices are.
> > As a
> > > > human I have a choice, a conscience
> > > > choice about what I do next, nature doesn't.
> > While
> > > > lightning may "jump" rain drops to get to the
> > ground
> > > > following the path of least resistance; it has
> > no
> > > > choice about this property (quality) of
> > lightning (and
> > > > electricity in general). It works the same
> > everytime.
> > > >
> > > > Does this example help?
> > > > -August
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Anyone read "Faster than the Speed of
> > Light"? I
> > > > can't remember the author's name, I remember he
> > is
> > > > Portugese though. Speed of Light was variable to
> > > > overcome the Horizon Problem in the Big Bang
> > Theory;
> > > > it is strictly theortical, but very, very
> > interesting.
> > > >
> > > > --- Pi <pi@mideel.ath.cx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi August,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would have to disagree. I don't think there
> > is any
> > > > > thing called
> > > > > "absolute perfection". A tree is not a tree
> > (as we
> > > > > usually define it) to a
> > > > > person who has never seen one. The tree is
> > different
> > > > > for this person.
> > > > > Perhaps this person is blind and only knows a
> > tree
> > > > > by the way it sounds
> > > > > (during a windy night) or the way it feels. It
> > is a
> > > > > perfect tree for this
> > > > > person; Just like how it is a perfect tree for
> > you.
> > > > > But it is *not*
> > > > > absolute.
> > > > >
> > > > > Similarly, 'a' is just a bunch of squigly
> > lines to a
> > > > > person who doesn't
> > > > > read english (or any syntactically similar
> > > > > language). Perhaps it is not
> > > > > even a bunch of lines for this person if they
> > do not
> > > > > know the concept
> > > > > of lines! 'a' is still "perfect" for this
> > person.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, the real point I want to stress with
> > these
> > > > > examples is that
> > > > > absolute perfection does not exist because we
> > all do
> > > > > not share
> > > > > intellectual patterns. If we did, there would
> > be no
> > > > > need for a discussion
> > > > > forum. ;) An object you
> > touch/see/feel/smell/taste
> > > > > is only there as a
> > > > > static intellectual pattern.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, yes, I do agree with the later part about
> > > > > "relative perfection". I
> > > > > think I have reinstated that point with the
> > examples
> > > > > above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take care,
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>http://calendar.yahoo.com
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 23:20:07 BST