Hi Ham, If you mean by a 'morality system' laws and punishment, I think the best we can do is come together as a community, with humility as to the tenuousness of our knowledge, and apply our best intellectual spovs.
Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 12:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality of Freedom Hi Marsha -- > Hello Ham, > > The Quality/DQ level is unquestionably Moral, but few dwell > at the DQ level for long. At the static level, morality is too often > mistakenly connected with causality, which like time and space > are illusions. At the static level, morality becomes a static > judgement based on the particular/s when really the particular > comes and goes and is in no sense "real". > > Does that work for you? >From what you've described, everything is either unapproachable or "unreal". >From what, then, do you think man can develop a morality system? (Or do you feel this is beyond man's capability?) Since we all participate in what you call a "static level" existence that is perceived to function causally, we have no alternative but to make morality work in this system, whether it's "illusory" or transitional. Regards, Ham, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality of Freedom > > John, Joe, Mark and All -- > > I wasn't able to locate the post in which Joe insisted that man couldn't > be > moral unless morality were an intrinsic law of the universe, like gravity, > imposed on him. But when I tried to make the point that man "invents" > morality, rather than the other way around, John jumped in to take issue > with me: > > [John, on 12/1]: >> But that point is the point with which I disagree. It makes more sense >> that the moral structure of the cosmos produces man, who retains >> recognition in his being of this intrinsic morality. ... >> >> The distinction is between morality and freedom. You say you couldn't >> have freedom if there was intrinsic morality and I say you couldn't have >> freedom UNLESS there was intrinsic morality. > > There is a gross misunderstanding of Freedom here, and it stems from > Pirsig's theory of "universal" Quality (DQ) that would deny existence a > cognitive value agent. In my opinion, this distorts not only the concept > of > > human freedom but the Quality (Value) sensibility that supports it. Such > a > worldview essentially eliminates the moral autonomy of man whose role as > choice-maker is the very core of morality. And the blame for this > prevarication falls squarely on the shoulders of MoQ's author. > > Since the Freedom issue is central to philosophy in general, yet > conspicuous > > by its absence in the MoQ specifically, I decided it warranted a thread of > its own. > > In 'The Discovery of Freedom', published over half a century ago, Rose > Wilder Lane writes: > "Very few men have ever known that men are free. Among this earth's > population now, few know that fact. For six thousand years at least, a > majority has generally believed in pagan gods. ... The pagan view of the > universe is that it is static, motionless, limited, and controlled by an > Authority ...that all individuals are, and by their nature should and must > be, controlled by some Authority outside themselves. ...[But] a time > comes when every normal man is a responsible human being. His energy > creates a part of the whole human world of his time. He is free; he is > self-controlling and responsible, because he generates his energy and > controls it. > No one and nothing else can control it." > > The MoQ thesis does not endorse this view. Instead it promulgates the > notion that man evolves through biological and social levels in order to > "intellectualize" goodness as something in Nature to which he must > "attach" > himself. But if this were true, the virtues of mankind -- compassion, > generosity, honesty, honor -- would have to be culled or extracted from > the > universal "DQ bank". Pirsigians look upon these values as "behavior > patterns" observed in enlightened people and advanced societies, rather > than > > responses to proprietary sensibility. > > I have repeatedly argued that if the universe were intrinsically moral, > the > issue of Morality would never even arise. All living creatures would > automatically behave as programmed by Nature's Goodness. But the universe > is patently not moral, as the "law of the jungle" demonstrates, and no > amount of intellect is going to moralize evolution. That's because > morality > > doesn't come from the universe. Only human beings have the value > sensibility to establish a moral code and the reasoning ability to live by > it. > > If we could view the universe as "intelligently designed" (which doesn't > require theism), we would see that man is individuated from the objective > world of his experience so that he may independently assess its value, > thereby gaining an "external perspective" of the primary source "unbiased" > by absolute knowledge. This perspective "colors" the being of existence > to > reflect the individual's sensibilities as well as the aspirations of his > culture. And, precisely because he is not a robot of Nature programmed to > follow a prescribed course, he is free to exercise decisions that adapt > the > world to his social, biological and intellectual needs and ideals. That > man > > is the choicemaker of his universe is demonstrated by the history of human > civilization -- particularly the tremendous increases in life-expectancy, > productivity, and practical knowledge, and the accelerated advances in > communication, transportation, industry and commerce achieved over just > the > last two centuries. > > Human Freedom is not simply a noble aphorism invented by moralists and > legislators. The "unalienable rights" sanctioned by America's Founders > alludes to a cosmic principle that applies even to individuals living in > servitude. Far more than a social right or a political entitlement, > Freedom > > is the scenario needed for the full appreciation of Value. It forces us > to > weigh and choose personal values in the context of an indeterminate > reality, > while at the same time affording us a singular opportunity to "make a > difference" in our > own life-experience and, by example, in the community of mankind at large. > > In summary, I maintain that it is a moral travesty to dismiss or reject > the > discriminative and rational faculties with which human beings are uniquely > endowed. To do so demeans our species and slights the individual's role > as > the free agent of experiential value. > > Essentially speaking, > 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/
