On Monday 20 April 2009 11:56 AM Ham writes to Platt: <snip> > Rather, it's the principle that value sensibility is > proprietary to the individual, not an attribute of the universe. <snip> On 5 March 2009 Case¹s Answer to Marsha: Still given the teleological bent of so many MoQers and the mystical bent of others I think The Way is a much better way of naming the unnamable Quality.. It implies a path or a journey, movement through space and time. A path wanders over and around obstacles. We see it ahead of us and it guides our steps but we still do not know where it is leading or if we will get there. The Way is a mystery but we are tuned by nature to recognize it in the patterns of meaningful coincidence that arise with every step we take. When the Shit hits the Fan Hold your breath, close your eyes and walk on. End of Part Four Hi All,
I like the TAO. Joe On 4/20/09 11:56 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Platt -- > > > >> I have probably missed the point of your questions since it >> seems obvious to me and probably to you that we as >> human beings currently living in the West are much better off >> than we were, say, in the Middle Ages or, going back even >> further, when we were painting symbols of antelope in the caves >> of Lascaux. As for the obvious "better offness" of morality, >> we no longer live in a world where might makes right but in a >> world of laws protecting individual rights to be free of social >> (government) oppression -- rights that as you know are now >> being threatened by Obamamania. Unfortunately the path to >> betterness (individual liberty/personal responsibility) is never >> without reversals and setbacks such as we are witnessing today. > > I guess I've narrowed down my "mission" here to a single purpose: persuading > the MoQers that value and morality start with the individual subject. The > problem with you folks -- and that includes you, Platt -- is that Pirsig has > rejected subjectivity and you are all trying to get around it by impugning > value to the insentient universe. This won't work epistemologically, > metaphysically, or as a morality system. > > This isn't a political mission -- heaven knows we've been beating that to > death for years. Rather, it's the principle that value sensibility is > proprietary to the individual, not an attribute of the universe. Value is > perceived differentially by the human being (organism) which > intellectualizes (rationalizes) it as an "esthetic/moral spectrum" from > goodness or excellence to evil or banality. What we experience are > objectivized manifestations of these values, and morality represents an > effort to ensure that human society survives and flourishes in the same way > that biological instincts assure the survival of non-valuistic life forms.. > > I believe that Mr. Pirsig was aiming for the same objective when decided to > make LILA "An Inquiry into Morals". What muddied the waters was his refusal > to acknowledge subjective awareness as the locus of value, replacing it with > an evolutionary system of levels and patterns which, in effect, turns > process and relations into "static" phenomena. > > Back in the '50s, I was intrigued by a small paperback in which a biologist > outlined a moralistic philosophy based on attraction and desire. As a > social moralist, you may find his line of reasoning of interest: > > "How much more certain a man is to do right if he not only knows what it is > but WANTS to do it! This want guards him far more strongly against wrong > than does the enforcement of his loyalty by law or obligation. A stong > desire, a goal he seeks, is more powerful in the end than these. The lesson > we must learn is that the only sure way to make man moral is through his > motives, to make him WANT to do the things he OUGHT to do. The means to > save society may be as simple--and as difficult--as that. What makes us do > evil is that evil, for one reason or another, attracts us more rthan good > does. Not until virtue is attractive FOR ITS OWN SAKE will men cleave > always to it. Our motive, our emotions, our MOVINGS must be elevated if > life is to reach a higher moral plane. Many reformers think that emotions > are a hindrance to man's attainment of the ideal society, and look forward > to the day when reason only, unclouded by feeling, will guide his conduct.. > That day will never come, for emotion gives the motive power for behavior.. > ...Science can help develop techniques by which the good life can be found, > but we shall never attain to it unless we earnestly DESIRE to do so." > -- Edmund W. Sinnott: "The Biology of the Spirit" (1957) > > For all I know, Dr. Sinnott's little book may have sparked my interest in > human value. (I no longer remember.) However, if you compare this simple > concept with Pirsig's non-subjective, non-emotional, levels-driven universe, > you may understand the reason for my discontent. > > 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/
