Rob responds to BO and simultaneously joins in on the debate over Diana's
"arbitrariness"
debate...
Summary: most situations of moral dilemma involve use the intellect within a social
context. Because of this, I agree with Diana that the MOQ is arbitrary. If one
believes
an outcome to be good, he/she picks the intellectual aspect of the situation as doing
its
duty. If one believes an outcome is bad, he/she picks the social aspect of the
situation
as clouding the intellect. Instropectively and fundamentally, it is not the "social
level" which dominates the intellect -- it is fear.
Bodvar:
Thanks for your insights on the levels. I agree with a lot you said. Of course, you
made
a few points that I am unsure of buying into. I'd really appreciate your further
input.
A large part of my existence here is due to my struggle with the MOQ. It is stuck in
my
head because I can not resolve whether to accept it and move on, or reject it and move
on.
I'm unsure whether you understood my viewpoints on being "sensitive to reality" when
you
paraphrased me. You wrote "any world view that brings you a 'blueprint' of reality
that
makes you able to analyze all situations in its light will do you good."
Basically, I believe that we should trust our experiences. If we can't -- we're
screwed
-- because as Pirsig explained that is all we have. What stops us from being grounded
or
sensitive to our experiences is a static attitude or mind. Note I am not saying the
patterns that we experience are static. ATTENTION is static when one fearfully clings
to
desires, ideals, needs, insecurities and so forth. Unconditional love, consequently,
is a
catalyst of goodness. The world would be less insecure. Of course, the individual must
ultimately *choose* to make an attitude adjustment. A fundamental difference between
my
views and the MOQ, is that the MOQ offers no notion of mind, will, attitude, or
attention. (I promised not to talk about these things this month, but it always seems
relevant.)
Back to the social level. You said that the MOQ is the first metaphysics to recognize
the
importance of society through its social level. Jealousy, insecurity, and
insensitivity
of reality are NEVER good. We don't need jealousy, for example, to hold society
together. People just need to be in touch with how miserable we would be without
society. Everyone wouldn't believe society was perfect, but they would want to do what
they could to keep it working. Pirsig's gumption comes to mind. Other terms are
sensitivity or love.
If racism, sexism, homophobia and so forth are social phenomenon then democracy,
freedom
of speech, inter cultural marriage, respect and tolerance are ALSO social phenomenon.
If
the latter are intellectual phenomenon, then so be the former! The social/intellectual
struggle presented by Pirisig is an illusion. All of human choice requires use of
intellect applied to experience. Our experiences most always have a social context --
as
I explained earlier this is especially true when insecurities and fear come into play.
But sometimes we ignore our intellect and/or the rest of our experiences. It is not the
social level taking over. It is fear.
My previous example of being a bully illustrates this. I *chose* to ignore what I
felt to
be right. I don't see it as a social/intellectual struggle. I was clinging to
something
I wanted (popularity) and ignored my other thoughts. It is interesting that we often
cling to "social" wants, but the clinging is more fundamental -- metaphysically
speaking
-- than the social aspects.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
