On Tuesday 6 May 2008 1:56 PM Ham writes to Joe and MarshaV: Hi Ham and all,
As a member of the older generation I have experienced a World War, a Catholic monastery, a soup line in New York at The Catholic Worker, non-violent resistance to segregation in the South, by the time I was 33, marriage and family to now. I should be so jaded. Yet, Ham, I am still tilting at an approach to viewing reality. ³moral² is not what is favorable to mankind. I think it is foolish to try to ³transcend experiential existence.² I have an image of a noose around my neck. After studying Aquinas, Aristotle, etc I think it is foolish to leave myself open to a criticism that I am just speaking subjectively. I agree with Pirsig¹s assessment of SOM. I would rephrase: ³If man is to become a moral creature, he must understand why he exists and what his role in existence is.² To ³If a man is to become a moral creature he must understand how he exists, and how he can become more.² ³Euphemisms, metaphors, analogies, and paradigms all have their place in philosophical discourse.² I agree. As for sensing value? Whatever works! As for the rest of the paragraph, Ham, you are a poet! Joe On 5/6/08 1:56 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Joe (and Marsha) -- > > On Tuesday 6 May 2008 2:22 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote: > >> I realize, Ham, that there is no "evolution" in your vocabulary. >> However, as an act of courtesy you might acknowledge that >> the analogy of DQ/SQ is a metaphysical approach to reality >> in consciousness. I won¹t find it laying beside the road, >> of course, but it may usher in a way of thinking that is not >> so bloody as our current political strife. > > Evolution is not only in the vocabulary of MoQists, it is their fundamental > reality. Change, movement, development, progress, are all attributes of > experienced reality. When they move in a direction that is favorable to > mankind, we call them "moral". When they are unfavorable, we either ignore > them or call them "bad" or, in Pirsig's analogy, "low-quality" events. > > I accept evolution as the "law of natural selection" in biology and > anthropology. But the flow of historical events is not the focus of my > philosophy. Just as Pirsig has disqualified SOM as fundamental, my > Philosophy of Essence is an attempt to transcend experiential existence. In > my opinion, we can't "usher in a way of thinking" that will eliminate > violence and political strife by telling people they aren't moral enough, or > that they haven't evolved to an intellectual level commensurate with Quality > behavior. > > If man is to become a moral creature, he must understand why he exists and > what his role in existence is. This has historically been the function of > mythology, religion, philosophy, empiricism, humanism, and sociology. But > they haven't been effective because they've been imposed on society as > "authority". And while man can be coerced by authority to behave in certain > ways, he will always resist such restriction on his freedom and find > alternative ways to express it. > > My approach is not to invent a new analogy but to get to the core values > that drive mankind. Some of these values are instinctually derived, like > seeking a source of food, self-defense, and sexual satisfaction. But > experience presents an inexhaustible variety of value choices that we make > every day, and they are all relative to our "being in the world". Our > choices can be arbitrary, selfish, or indifferent probablistic). Or they > can be based on our purpose as free agents of a primary source -- the moral > axiom of 'rational self-directed value'. That won't happen until mankind > has a belief system that is not only in harmony with Nature but with the > essential source. > > Euphemisms, metaphors, analogies, and paradigms all have their place in > philosophical discourse. But they have little affect on the way we sense > value. Only understanding based on a metaphysical concept of reality can > change our value perspective. You may ask if such a perspective will be > "for the better". To which I'd reply rhetorically, if it enables man to > value the life and freedom of others as he values his own, can it be less > than better? > > 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/ 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/
