Hi Platt, I think I understand where you are coming from. In my view, your and my moral decisions are being driven by Quality, and in that sense they are exactly the same. The relative concepts comes up in the static view which leads to a personal sense of good and bad, as compared. I don't know if there is a best view, or whether it is important, I will leave that to the politicians, sociologists, and religious orders. For me, the important concept is, that all being is formed or driven by Quality which is non-Being. Once that is accepted, everything else falls into place. I can understand this from a feeling point of view, which one may call mystical. I hate to use that term, however, because it sounds so elevated, which it is not. In fact it lacks a lot of the reasoning aspect of living that we call intelligence, making it perhaps lower. I think that once the concept of Quality catches on, I don't know how it will grow, but I'll be happy to leave it to the organizers in this world to create the guidance portion for teaching purposes. My reasoning comes a lot from the Tao, and is therefore somewhat biased.
Regards, Willblake2 On Mar 15, 2009, at 9:37:35 AM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Platt, > > I just posted on Quality and non-Being something which may be relevant.. I > don't think the subjective aspects of Quality are important. What is > important is that Quality does have a moral bias or direction. Whether we > can agree on our perceptions does not matter for the existence and > guidance of Quality. I believe we are in touch with Quality all the time, > that is what is important, not to statically write down a set of > commandments. Hi Willblake2, I agree. The question is, "Is my sense of the moral bias or direction of Quality as good as yours?" If yes, morality is relative to each individual. If no, who is to say what's the best moral bias, direction or "guidance?" Thanks. Platt > > Willblake2 > > > On Mar 14, 2009, at 5:34:44 PM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> > wrote: > From: "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Subjectivity in the MOQ > Date: March 14, 2009 5:34:44 PM PDT > To: [email protected] > > On Saturday 14 March 2009 8:27 AM Platt asks all: > > > > <snip> > > > > "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of > > quality > > is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns > > are > > different for everyone because each person has a different static > pattern > > of > > life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns > influence > > his > > final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual > > value > > judgments but not complete uniformity." (Pirsig--SODV) > > > > With one stroke Pirsig overthrows his premise of universal morality by > > admitting to moral relativity. Further, he implies that to overcome > > moral > > relativity is impossible because "each person has a different static > > pattern > > of life history." > > <snip> > > > > "Where have I go wrong in this post?" > > > > Hi Platt and all, > > > > If principles for a manifestation are established, are they the same > as > > the > > principles for an order? DQ is an undefined principle in order > expressed > > by > > evolution MOQ. I prefer 7 levels of evolution. DQ is also coupled with > > SQ > > in a manifestation within a particular order of evolution, MOQ DQ/SQ.. > > IMO > > The relationships of DQ between a manifestation and order are > different. > > DQ > > as the order of evolution stands alone since it is describing > existence. > > For a manifestation, MOQ, the DQ stands with SQ as evolution as Pirsig > > says. > > > > Joe > > Hi Joe, > > Thanks for responding, but I don't grasp your point. Do you think moral > choices are relative to individuals and/are cultures or not? It would > seem > from Pirsig's SODV quote that it is. But, that would put a kibosh on > his > idea of a universal morality would it not? To put it another way, what > moral standards does the MOQ propose, if any? If there are standards, > by > what authority would they be enforced if each individual is allowed to > make > moral choices based on his life history? > > Thanks, > Platt > > > > > > > > > > On 3/14/09 8:27 AM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > All: > > > > > > A major premise of the MOQ is the existence of a universal moral > order, > > of > > > good and evil, right and wrong. Understanding this moral order > depends > > on > > > understanding the constant conflicts between the evolutionary moral > > levels. > > > What is right at the biological level (the law of the jungle) is > wrong > > at > > > the social level (laws of society), etc. Also required is the > assumption > > of > > > an indefinable moral force called Dynamic Quality. > > > > > > But when it comes to individuals, universal morality appears to > revert > > to > > > individual idiosyncrasies. In a word, morality becomes subjective -- > a > > > concept the MOQ otherwise attempts to deny. > > > > > > "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of > > quality > > > is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static > patterns > > are > > > different for everyone because each person has a different static > > pattern > > > of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns > > influence > > > his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among > > individual > > > value judgments but not complete uniformity." (Pirsig--SODV) > > > > > > With one stroke Pirsig overthrows his premise of universal morality > by > > > admitting to moral relativity. Further, he implies that to overcome > > moral > > > relativity is impossible because "each person has a different static > > > pattern of life history." > > > > > > I think moral relativists (the multiculturist, political > correctness, > > > tolerance-above-all crowd) that infest academia would eagerly seize > on > > > Pirsig's acknowledgment of subjective nature of moral judgments to > toss > > the > > > MOQ out of serious philosophical consideration if indeed they > haven't > > > already done so. > > > > > > Perhaps this is what our friend Ham has been banging about all along.. > So > > to > > > all true blue MOQites I ask, "Where have I go wrong in this post?" > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > 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/ > > > 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/ 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/
