Dear Marsha -- At 3:09 AM, you wrote: > I do not see a strict rule, but a dynamic principle. > A higher level pattern has precedence over a lower level > pattern because it represents an evolutionary advancement.
How do we know what will represent an evolutionary advancement? The inventor of the binary code saw this as an interesting way to express alpha-numeric characters using only '0's and '1's. Did he know that it would lead to the development of computers, digital communication, and high-definition television? Did the colonialists who drafted the U.S. Constitution know that it would become the founding document of the world's greatest nation? > I don't agree with the word 'conquer'. I think it's that a higher > level is to support and improve lower levels. The Intellectual > Level is to help move the Social Level towards a more dynamic > experience. Do we live to support and improve levels, or to support and advance ourselves? You object to the term "conquer" as applied to Pirsig's levels, and instead say "a higher level takes precedence over a lower level." Well, if that's a cosmic principle, we don't see much evidence of it in human relations where selfishness, greed, arrogance, and the rule of power prevail. If Quality is not a cosmic principle, how are we to live by it? I submit that all this statement suggests is that reason is (often) a more effective approach to problem-solving than gut reactions, emotional responses, or physical violence. There are exceptions to this rule, however. If a thief breaks into your home, you're not likely to sit down and ponder a reasonable solution to this problem. You will act immediately, with what force is at your command. If you've read my book, you know that l define morality as "rational self-directed value". None of us can escape Value: it is primary to all our needing, wanting, loving, and selfish desiring. All human beings are driven by Value. As free individuals, we act so as to direct our value to the optimization of experience that fulfills our needs, wants, and desires. We make our actions "moral" when we apply reason to our value-driven behavior. Morality generally refers to social behavior, that is, giving due consideration to what effect my action will have on others. Thus, Kant's Categorical Imperative was: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". Jesus taught his disciples to "Do unto others what thou wouldst have them do unto you." These moral precepts admonish us to temper our responses and actions so that they are "reasonable" within a social context. Consideration for others is "intellectual" when we are indifferent to the affected persons. In many cases, however, it is our compassion that "takes precedence over" intellect. Are we to conclude that emotional (psycho-biological) responses are a "lower level" morality than Intellect, that a mother's actions in response to a child in danger are less moral than an intellectual response? If not, then human compassion is a kind of selfish value-direction which has moral consequences. Moreover, if all human beings were compassionate toward their fellow creatures, we could reserve intellect for those choices and actions which do not directly involve social issues. Until then, I'll stick with the precept "rational self-directed value" as my morality principle. > Humans are Quality. Quality being Dynamic Quality and static quality. It's a nice thought, but I'd have a hard time convincing myself that humans like Osama Bin Laden are persons of Quality. I could respect his "humanness" if he were not inhumane. > In LILA, RMP states that "What holds a person together is > his patterns of likes and dislikes." I think that would hold for > Krimel's dog too. I think Buddhism states desire is the root > to suffering. I never used the word evil (I don't much like the > word.), and I'm not a Buddhist, but I do believe that desire > with attachment is the root of suffering. For some things I > seem willing to pay that price. That's an honest assessment, Marsha. And you are correct about desire as the Buddhist "root of suffering" in the mundane sense of desiring. (It's akin to the devout Christian's aversion to material attachments.) You and I are both willing to pay the price of working for morality. No human being is perfect, and Goodness and Evil are relative conditions in finite experience. But we have a higher purpose here, I hope. And that is to acknowledge a reality beyond relational existence. RMP has gained a loyal following by labeling this reality Quality, as if Quality could stand by itself unconditionally. For me, quality or value is a measure of goodness or excellence that requires an observing subject. It's what we feel towards our uncreated source. Sensibility to value is our link to that source but it's not the source itself. Religion, philosophy, and mysticism all point to the ultimate reality, but the intellectual creature in his arrogance calls it a myth, still suffering in his desire for attachments. Essentially yours, 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/
