Hi Ham, [Platt] > > What I don't understand is why a Hitler or a Islamic extremist > > couldn't appeal to the same sources to justify the morality of their > > actions. In other words, just how does the "essential source" > > inform us of what is moral and what isn't? For example, does it > > inform us that all human life is sacred? If so, where does it stand > > on the question of self-defense? More to the basic question: > > how would we know the answers to such questions?
[Ham] > Value-sensibility is not based on "information" or instructions from on > high. It is always the individual who chooses the values for his/her > 'being-aware'. Oddly enough, this is proving to be the most difficult point > to get across. A major part of the problem is the MoQ notion that morality > is designed into the universe, which suggests that there is one "right" > Value (Quality) that everybody has to "attach to". This couldn't be farther > from my anthropocentric ontology. Pirsig's moral hierarchy is more of a guide than a hard and fast list of rights and wrongs. But, "morality designed into the universe?" OK -- as a foil to your ontology. > I cannot emphasize enough that each individual is a free agent of Value. > He/she is driven by value. But the value that drives us is not a holistic > unity like DQ or Essence; as finite beings we sense it differentially, > incrementally, and individually. Remember that everything in existence is > differentiated and relational. The whole point of differentiated experience > is that it facilitates an infinite variety of perspectives of the primary > source (Essence) from which we are all separated. As the finite agents of > an absolute source, the way we sense value(s) determines our interpretation > of reality (experience), our thoughts, our desires, and our behavior. No argument with "an infinite variety of perspectives" as witness this very site, not to mention socialists, communists, fascists and other collectivist totalitarian perspectives. > Morality is an inappropriate term for value appreciation because it suggests > that all behavior is either "right" or "wrong" and that one "ought" to > behave in a certain way. This, of course, is contrary to the concept of > individual freedom where the emphasis is on value motivation, rather than > behavior per se. Can you explain the difference between value motivation and its relation to behavior per se? Seems to me the two are intimately connected as cause (motivation) and effect (behavior). >Of course people oppressed by tyranny or fear, whether > enforced by dictators or religious mandates, are not able to exercise their > freedom until they break their bonds by rebelling against the state or > escaping from it. I believe fear, even more than the "promises of > Paradise", is largely what motivates the Islamic terrorists, and this is a > power strategy of the Imams and Mullahs who rule this theocracy. Ability to "exercise freedom" in order to express and act on "value sensibilities" appears to be a basic moral principle of Essentialism. That which inhibits the ability is immoral, that which enhances the ability is moral. Would that be a fair description of a moral stance required by Essence? > To answer your other questions, self-defense is an instinctive response to > attack that we've inherited from our predecessors. Without a means of > defense, a species soon becomes extinct by the law of natural selection. > That also applies to mankind, although brute response to an attacker can be > mediated by more rational behavior where appropriate. OK. Self-defense is more of an instinctive, natural response than a moral choice. (As you know, the MOQ argues that instinctive responses are also moral responses at a biological level, as in the hot stove example.) > Again, Homo sapiens > are endowed with two unique capabilities: intellectual judgment (i.e., the > power of reason) and value sensibility (the ability to discriminate or > "prioritize" values). Together they suggest a moral principle that I have > called "rational, self-directed value". For a society that believes in the > sanctity of human life and cherishes individual freedom, this principle > could conceivably lead to a more authentic culture. So in addition to freedom to respond to one's value sensibility, a second moral principle of Essentialism is rationality. That which inhibits rational thought is immoral, that which enhances rational thought is moral. Is that correct? If so, I'm not sure how that is derived from Essence. > But I also believe we need a metaphysical foundation in order to live life > fully and in harmony with others. I hesitate using the label "belief > system" which invariably connotes "faith" in some mystical or supernatural > dogma. However, inasmuch as Essence transcends finitude and difference, it > is patently "supra-natural", for the same reasons that Pirsig's DQ (IMO) is. > So, I'm not averse to calling a spade a spade when it comes to wisdom. After > all, where do we find wisdom in scientific objectivism, nihilism, or > humanism? I agree that Pirsig's Quality transcends the finite world, but like Essence, Quality is also immanent. Also agree we need a metaphysical foundation and would argue everybody has one whether than can verbalize it or not. Most don't -- and that's a problem, as is the sad state of education in general. > Thanks for the questions, Platt, and for another opportunity to explain my > position. Always nice to have an conversation with you, Ham. Not only because I learn something, but because it's adult. Best regards, Platt 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/
