On 8/4/09 4:12 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote to Willblake2 and all:
Imho the strength of directional evolution is "morality!"
Pirsig saw that when the individual is clearly examined, DQ,
undefined evolution, is a necessary descriptive element for
understanding. We do not hesitate to judge people. SOM
cannot make that judgment since in a statement of SOM the
S is undefined, and there is no personal hierarchy save religion
for morality, only social morality. Morality other than law
is DQ individual morality, evolution. Society has murdered
the wrong people in some cases. In our times War is the
proper social adjustment to anarchy.
Did you mean to say that "the direction of evolution is morality"? If
that's what you meant, and it seems to be what Pirsig is saying, then you
have a different concept of morality than I do. For me, morality requires
human judgment. It's society's convention for acceptable behavior based on
the value-sensibility of its individual members. Without a sensible agent,
there would be no realization of morality or value.
Actually, you make my point in the rest of your paragraph. You say that "we
do not hesitate to judge people", which admits that human beings have the
capacity to evaluate, and that morality is THEIR judgment call, not DQ's or
the Universe's. You say that SOM cannot make that judgment since S is
undefined and only religion (i.e., society) can determine what is moral.
Yet you imply that there is something innate in man (at least in the
collective sense) which is the basis for his moral judgments. Now that's
interesting, because it expresses exactly what Peter Williams suggested in
his "aesthetic arguments for God" with which I introduced this thread.
Compare these excerpts with what you've stated above:
"There is objective beauty in books and music, but these things also stir
within us a desire for a beauty greater than themselves which we seem to
apprehend _through_ their beauty. It is as if their finite beauty is a
derived quality that draws our aesthetic attention into the heaven of
underived and absolute beauty. On the theistic view of things, this `as if'
finds its fulfillment."
"Lewis was impressed by Rudolph Otto's book The Idea of the Holy, in which
`the Numinous' is described as that which causes in those who perceive it a
sense of awe. This sense of awe is not the fear that would be caused by
believing a fierce animal was in the room with you, nor the supernatural
dread of believing a ghost to be nearby, but the feeling of awe one might
have if one simply believed that `a great spirit' were present. The
Numinous is not the subjective experience, but the transcendent object about
which one feels this sense of awe. The principle of credulity (that we
should trust first impressions until given reason for doubt) encourages us
to take the straightforward interpretation of such experience that the
Numinous is an objective reality truly perceived."
Williams is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis to demonstrate that "the feeling of
awe", Numinous or the sense of beauty, is a "first impression" (Pirsig's
"pre-intellectual experience"?) of Value that WE (as the sensible agents)
"should trust until given reason for doubt." Note that he doesn't refer to
a "universal" or "existential" value but rather, as you say, that moral
value is a "judgment" or interpretation of the individual subject.
Logically, then, if evolution is thought to move in a moral direction, it
can only be because man SENSES it as moral. In other words, the ideal model
for Morality or Beauty is not an existent, does not reside in the physical
universe, but is derived from the Value of the uncreated source and is
represented experientially as what we desire or find awe-inspiring.
I can be sentenced to death for my actions. If there were no DQ
we could know nothing about an individual¹s sense of responsibility.
I know you don¹t like ³individuals² they are too dynamic! For morality
there has to be an acceptance of undefined evolution.
AN INQUIRY INTO MORALS!
Perhaps if there were no DQ individuals wouldn't be around to know anything!
Quality must be realized in order to have any value. And that, as I keep
repeating, requires a sensible agent. You and I may value something as
good, beautiful, or moral. The universe doesn't, nature doesn't, nor does
Quality.
It's too bad Mr. Pirsig chose not to define his DQ, as it remains a
continuing source of confusion. The acronym suggests "dynamic", yet as a
primary source it is undifferentiated and immutable. Quality is posited as
a self-sustained and independent realm, yet the word is commonly understood
as a measure of goodness or excellence, and "man is the measure of all
things." In my opinion, the proper term for what we're talking about is
"value sensibility", which is the psychic core of man's existence.
Thanks, Joe. I suspect we'd be on the same page if it were not for the MOQ
hierarchy.
-- Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Joe
The trouble with the evolutionary lens, is that it is one-sided.
Evolution proposes growth through change (perhaps directional),
on an unchanging backdrop. With our short lives this is imaginable since
we do not experience the ever changing non-biological universe.
However, that backdrop is forever changing. Since it appears
that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity) are also "evolving",
and
indeed time is also changing. Biology changes in time to the changes
of the planet, which changes in time to the changing forces, which change
in time to time. All this change is simply an endless dance, and what
a waltz it is.
This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see. Once one
becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea
of a beginning kind of loses its importance. Rather than directional
evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless
transformation.
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/
