From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 06:28:39 GMT
Hi Johnny and all,
This will be my fare-the-well post for awhile, as I will be returning to lurkersville. I have a lot of work (you know, saving the world and all) to do lately and I need a little break. But I will return some time in the not-too-distant future.
Johnny asked me: “why is "not needing to respect Morality" so important to you?”
Before I addressed the rest of his post I thought I would begin with this. Johnny is a perfect example of why I reject Pirsig’s metaphysics. However, I still have gained and will continue to gain insight from Pirsig’s work. So to answer his question. I do respect morality. I don’t respect Morality (capital M). Morality and Dynamic Quality are not synonyms from my interpretation of Pirsig’s work, but if I am wrong (and Pirsig indeed says they are), then I would have to reject another aspect of Pirsig’s work. But I don’t think I have to do that. Here is the difference between morality as I define it and Morality as Johnny defines it. I think morality is a catch-all phrase for the rules individuals live by in society. I think these rules are determined through intersubjective agreement. I think I have gone over this enough. Johnny says he agrees with me, but he adds that Morality also creates intersubjective agreement. If he means to substitute Dynamic Quality for Morality, then we have a very small
space for agreement. But, the problem I have with this is two parts. First, what does this do for the morality as I defined it. In other words what does this mean for rules we live by. If rules are reached by intersubjective agreement and we call this morality, than why impose Morality (or God or Dynamic Quality) on top of it. We only have control of the intersubjective part. So, why not just leave the Divine alone? The second is it divorces us of the intersubjective process. It says Morality will take care of itself. This is an idea I think is dangerous. Here is why, using a fundamentalist evangelical Christian from the southern United States as an example. The fundamentalist evangelical Christian does not care about the suffering endured by Palestianians or Israelites in the Middle East. All this suffering, killing, turmoil and immorality has been prophesiesed in Revelations. The Seven Seals are upon us. Likewise, the war in Iraq has no purpose other than fulfilling these prophesies s!
et in th
e Bible for these fundamentalists. I am sure some fundamentalist Islamist feel the same way. Morality for the Fundamentalist Christian has already been taken care of by God so we don’t have to do anything more about it. This is why I get worked up over people saying Dynamic Quality creates intersubjective agreement. If it is true, we have no control over it. So, why not try and solve these problems by ourselves and just let Dynamic Quality do whatever it does. If it isn’t true [DQ doesn't creat intersubjective agrrement], I am afraid this attitude leads to an avoidance of many responsibilities that should be faced by all of us.
If Johnny means that morality and Morality are synonyms, then I am afraid he is just a plain fool. Actually, (and I don’t mean this as an insult, just stating a fact from the evidence), either way I think Johnny is foolish.
Johnny: “If you don't say one should have greater respect for something, it
isn't respectful at all, now is it?”
Andy: I am not sure if this is a trick question or not. So if you respect something. And then someone says you should have even greater respect for this and you refuse, this is disrespectful? Evidence, exhibit 1.
Johnny: “And as to Morality being the source of everything, it's just straight Pirsig.”
Andy: Pirsig says Dynamic quality is the source.
Johnny: “Morality and Quality are synonyms, when we use Morality we are talking about the whole thing, not merely the cultural mores of a particular time and place. Other synonyms are Reality and Experience and I zealously promote Expectation as the most insightful and profound synonym. But they all mean Morality.”
Andy: If they all mean Morality, why do we have the other words?
Andy had said: “One can respect morality without putting it as the source of all things.”
Johnny replied: “No, you can't at all. That's just brushing it off. It is Rta, the
source of things.”
Andy: I am not brushing off morality as I defined it. I am also respecting your wish to put Dynamic quality as the source for all things. But, I am saying this doesn’t help individuals in society decide the rules we should live by. Dynamic Quality will never come to the rescue. We decide the rules, that is all I am saying.
Johnny said : “Morality is Quality is Reality and is the source of all things and it is very very useful to realize that, and it does amazing things for strengthening intersubjective agreement “
Andy: Like what?
Johnny: “[It does amazing things for] achieving goals and acting and feeling at home and satisfied in the universe when people respect morality.”
Andy: We can achieve goals without respecting Morality, but we can’t if we don’t respect each other.
Johnny: And that [substituting God for Morality] is a valid substitution, one that makes the word God more pallatable for me personally. I translate God back into Morality and Quality and it all makes sense. (Though of course the personification of God as portrayed in the Bible I attribute to the way in which Morality that created the Bible - I don't disrespect that portrayal or consider it untrue, I just philosophically see it for what it is.)
Andy: You philosophically see it for what it is? Evidence: exhibit 2
Andy had asked: “I am not asking you to decide, just take part in the conversation.”
Johnny replied: “I am, aren't I (?)”
Andy: Absolutely not, see exhibit 8 below
Johnny: “OK, but where do you believe intersubjective agreement comes from?”
Andy: From people discussing, communicating, persuading and deciding courses of action.
Johnny: “How do you think someone comes to believe their beliefs?”
Andy: Complicated process, I am not sure if we will ever completely understand it, nor do I think it is important that we do. I do, however, think it is important that one should always make attempts to question their most sacred held beliefs.
Johnny: “Do you think you can control you beliefs, get yourself to believe something you don't believe?
Andy: Do you think they cannot and is there a point to this line of questioning?
Andy had said: “We have bigger problems
>facing us, you might say, than to be trying to figure out the ultimate
>source or essence behind the physical world.”
Johnny replied: “I don't believe that. I believe our biggest problem is the disresect of Morality, as that has profound implications all the way down to the the atomic level. I'm all for solving other problems, and not stopping you,
either, I might add...”
Andy: Evidence exhibit 3. Not respecting Morality has implications down to the atomic level. You got to be kidding? OK, I will ponder that for a few days in respect for my earlier statement that one should make attempts to question their most sacred held beliefs. I am not stopping you from searching for the source or essence behind the physical world, just simply advising you that you are wasting your time and there are more important things to worry about.
Johnny: “Blasphemy against Quality. I'm not sure what divine means.”
Andy: Lets try the standard definition. From Websters, Divine: Of or pertaining to God, esp the supreme being. You said we were going to leave the supreme beings out. Also from Webster, Blasphemy: to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things). Need I say more?
Andy had said: “>The pragmatist will say we don't need to combine morality with
>intersubjective agreement or say that morality creates intersubjective
>agreement.”
Johnny said: “You need to say it because understanding where intersubjective agreement comes from and the role of morality in our world is vital to maintaining the value in the world, vital to maintaining value itself. The pragmatist has
his head in the sand, uninterested in how things really are.”
Andy: And you, my friend, are a fool. As I explained we as individual members in a society decide the rules we live by and this is morality. Unless you are now going to make a distinction between Morality (Dynamic Quality) and morality, which it is clear here you are not we have: Evidence, exhibit 4
Andy had said: “ >The pragmatist says these things because he (she) wants individuals to take some responsibility and have active part in creating a moral and just society for all to participate in. In order to do this individuals need to
converse, discuss, persuade and come to some intersubjective agreement.”
Johnny: “But we already are at intersubjective agreement. It's the reality
that we live in, and for which we are responsible. Pragmatists always seem
to be saying that we need to wait for a few more years until conditions are
favorable to begin properly living.”
Andy: And where did you pull this out from? Evidence, Exhibit 5
Johnny: “Plus I think they don't want to come to intersubjective agreement, they want to convince people of their specific viewpoints. That's why they don't see the present as already being an intersubjective agreement.”
Andy: No, No and No. I want to convince you of my viewpoints. Yes this is true. But pragmatists are not saying I am right because Dynamic Quality says I am. They are trying to persuade. The present is a result of intersubjective agreement. But, there are still problems in the world presently. If you don’t see this, than I present to you Evidence: exhibit 6.
Johnny: The MoQ says ideas come first. (the first idea being Expectation
itself, Morality itself)
Andy: So now we are calling Idea a synonym with Morality and Dynamic Quality too? Oh boy. Evidence: Exhibit 7
Andy had said: “I don't care what creates it all.”
Johnny adviced: “You should because it is what holds it together. So if you care
about it being held together you should care about what creates it.”
Andy: IT is what holds IT together. So if you care about IT being held together you should care about what creates IT. And IT is…Morality/Dynamic Quality/Idea/God. Okay maybe I do care, but I am saying the fact that I care helps us not one iota in getting on in the world.
Johnny: “Just the religious "divine" phraseology. You can't leave out Quality.”
Andy: Sure you can. You can call it Morality or Idea or Allah or God or Poop or Nothingness or Ether or Andy or 4 … And then you can answer yes, but I call that Quality, so you didn’t really leave it out. To which I answer, So where does this get us. IMO nowhere.
Johnny: “What if I feel it is helpful in coping? I don't think I'm stopping
any real problems from being solved by asking for Morality to be respected.
Unless you consider Morality itself to be a problem, in which case I think I
probably wouldn't like your solutions.”
Andy: This is what I am talking about. If one thinks doesn’t respect Morality then you are not going to like the solutions they propose. This is like the Israelite saying they will never like a solution proposed by a Palestinian or vice-versa. Why is it so important to you that all your interlocutors respect Morality? This is a very foolish way to go about in the world. Evidence: Exhibit 8.
Johnny: “I think it is very helpful in solving problems and having
discussions to see the ubiquity of Morality.”
Andy: And I am not saying you should toss this belief aside. I am just asking you why you think it is important for everyone to share this belief.
Andy had said: “You sound confused, but that's okay. Confusion is good. THere are
>no ultimate answers, so we should all be comfortable with a little
>confusion.”
Johnny: “I think that Anthropic Principle is a little off, that's all. It
just attacks it wrong.”
Andy: So you are not confused. Evidence, Exhibit 9
Good bye for awhile fools,
Your dearest fool,
Andy
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 Nov 05 2003 - 06:29:22 GMT