Greetings, Joseph --
> I have felt for a long time that you, Ham, do not have a workable > ontology for morality. IMO value is a description of an order of > existence. > Wow, I can’t believe I just said that. I can't either. Just what does it mean? Joe, I don't claim to have an ontology for morality. Ontology has to do with theories of the physical universe and its dynamics. Since I don't posit morality or value as the primary reality, I don't have Mr. Pirsig's advantage of being able to equate morality with the "stuff of existence". > I have always tried to keep existence pristine. In your ontology of > "existence from essence-nothingness" how is anything ever destroyed > in principle and therefore evil or immoral? I do not control nothingness! > I do not control essence! There is no reversible choice, only non-being! Most of this is incomprehensible to me. What does it mean to "keep existence pristine"? What do you want to "destroy in principle"? Are you suggesting that behaving morally should eliminate evil from existence? You do not control Essence but, inasmuch as you are separated from it, neither does Essence control you. Also, you DO control nothingness in the sense that you use it to differentiate the things and events of your reality. And I don't know what you mean by a "reversible choice", unless you're talking about the "non-being" of self-inflicted death. Surely life holds more choices for you than this! > I prefer an octave of levels, morality. I agree with Pirsig that if the > higher > level destroys a lower level it commits suicide, and if the lower level > destroys the higher level evolution stops. IMO the highest two levels are > only levels in consciousness. I become simply a mechanical being, when I > deny an evolution of consciousness. If I deny evolution on principle????? > As an individual I am responsible for myself! How can I empathize with > SA’s description of the girl who has had her intellectual level destroyed > by > dogma and only has the motivation of a mechanical sex as a basis of > activity? > Life is exciting (sex) but each person relates to another from law > (intellect) > for behavior and (higher social, higher intellectual) for an enlightenment > of > happiness. Again, Joe, you'll have to explain the point of your complaint. I view morality (values) as a range of possibilities rather than "an octave of levels." The choice of one value over another does not destroy the other; you simply don't actualize the rejected value as part of your being. I have no idea what "the highest two levels" refer to, nor do I understand why the denial of evolution turns you into "a mechanical being". (Incidentally, I do not deny evolution as man's perception of natural process, if that's what you're getting at.) I couldn't find SA's story of the girl who had her "intellectual level" destroyed, so I'm not sure whether the damage was caused by disease or psychological trauma, or if it is permanent. If this is a case of forced prostitution, the tragedy is that the girl had no other option for survival. Regarding your last sentence, do you really relate to another person by "law"? Do you really rely on intellect for happiness? I find these assertions incredulous. > Your common sense seems to defy your ontology. If existence is an > anthropocentric reality where does "value realization" come from? > Only essence is variable and it only responds to nothingness. > "Value realization" is a judgement apart from existence from essence- > nothingness, or it is hard-wired and my behavior is not free, no choice! Man is the focal center of existence. All knowledge is derived from his experience, and experience is a representation of one's value-sensibility. Therefore, the physical world is an anthropocentric system. Only existence (the individual's finite perception of reality) is variable. Essence is immutable. But because human beings are separated from their essential source, they are autonomous agents of their world. Individuals are not hard-wired but are free to exercise their choices, actualize their values, and in so doing have the capability to change the world structurally, socially and morally for the better. > IMO Your ontology is incomplete, you deny freedom, a > subjective awareness! Rational self-interest demands an > ontology for order! You are confused about my philosophy. If you had read my thesis, you would never say that I deny freedom. To the contrary, my emphasis on the individuality of proprietary awareness in a differentiated world, the value-sensibility of the core self, and the total autonomy of man to actualize his chosen values, are all fundamental to my ontology. This synthesis of "essential ingredients" metaphysically guarantees freedom. Before taking my words out of context to paraphrase what you think I said about Essentialism, I suggest that you read my essay on Freedom http://www.essentialism.net/autonomy.htm . Essentially yours, Ham --------------------------------- > Hi Ron, SA, David, Marsha -- > > > Whenever we try to apply morality to value, we run into problems. This is > because morality (normative ethics) is based on the 'summum bonum' > principle > of virtue as conceived by the early Greeks. It is an attempt to quantify > value in order to achieve what utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham called > "the > greatest good for the greatest number of people." > > Here is what Wikipedia says about utilitarian morality: > > "Since utilitarians judge all actions by their ability to maximize good > consequences, any harm to one individual can often be justified by a > greater > gain to other individuals. This is true even if the loss for the one > individual is large and the gain for the others is marginal, as long as > enough individuals receive the small benefit. Thus, utilitarians deny that > individuals have inviolable moral rights. As explained above, utilitarians > may support legal rights or rights as rules of thumb, but they are not > considered inherent to morality. This seems problematic to many critics of > utilitarianism, one of whom notes that according to utilitarianism there > is > "nothing intrinsically wrong with sacrificing an important individual > interest to a greater sum of lesser interests. That assumption is retained > in the foundations of the theory, and it remains a source of moral > concern." > > Notice the quantitative connotation of this philosophy -- "as long as > enough > individuals...", "...a greater sum of lesser interests...", etc. > Clearly, > by striving to make our decisions and actions conform to a collective > majority, we impugn the meaning of value as proprietary sensibility. > Since > all behavioral values are represented in Nature, I find SA's moral > imperative "being one with nature" somewhat ambiguous. > > I maintain that existence is an anthropocentric reality, that value > realization is primarily a human function. Like experience itself, all > value is proprietary to the individual. Your likes and interests are > self-serving, and no amount of persuasion by other individuals, no matter > how many or how powerful, can change your values without violating your > freedom to choose. Apart from the blind obedience demanded of monarchs > and > priests, values come into being by the psycho-emotional realization of the > individual. Social values change only when individuals change their > valuistic perspective of reality. > > I am an advocate of rational self-interest, and by "rational" I mean the > ability to discern the value (positive or negative) in applying my chosen > course of action to mankind at large. This has nothing to do with numbers > or quantities of human beings. Generally it can be described in terms of > the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would want them to do to you, or > as > Kant expressed it in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to > that > maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a > universal law." Underlying this principle is the value rational people > innately sense toward their fellow man. > > The reality we have to deal with here is that not all people are rational; > therefore laws must be established whereby the society may legally punish, > incarcerate or rehabilitate those who behave in an inhumane, criminal, or > malevolent manner. This rule applies as well to the sovereign interests > and > behaviors of nations in the world community. > > If this interpretation of moral values doesn't make sense, kindly tell me > why. > > Regards, > Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
