Hi Ham, Platt, Marsha, all, A metaphysical system can be created through reason, but true understanding must be aesthetic. Essentialism is indeed aesthetically quite full, even though it leaves the spark of awareness in mystical cloaking. It accepts awareness, and goes from there.
Quality is no different, and indeed first cause may not be what we should be trying to establish. Quality provides a hierarchical system, kind of like layers of heaven. That is heaven on earth, which many still deny is present. In the same way, morality is up for debate. The semantic meaning of morality seems to have been tweaked a bit, in that it applies to growth, The assumption is also that growth is good. So in a sense the philosophy self actualizes and confirms itself. But I digress. There is no doubt in my mind that there is direction of some kind, whether that be positive or negative, that is merely a matter of definition. A matter of being enthusiastic or disenchanted. The direction may be circular. Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, in much the same way. I feel that most of what we do and see is outside of free will. We are provided very limited choices, and as in politics often choose the lesser of two evils. True choice is indeed absent for we must play according to the rules. Within the sphere of guided choice, we may have some freedom. Such guided choice may be along a path of morality. Why should it be that we are even provide choices? Why is this existence not merely one of preprogrammed self-assembly? It would seem that while the idea of the universe is present, the actual execution and result is still up in question. In fact the actual resulting morality is still undefined. Ham's notion of sensibility comes in here as the mechanism through which morality is driven. Instead of Nothingness, we have Quality as the backdrop. It's negation brings choice. Mark On Dec 6, 2009, at 10:03:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality of Freedom Date: December 6, 2009 10:03:12 AM PST To: [email protected] Hi Ham, I would respectfully suggest that so long as you think of morality as confined to humans and human social patterns you will never grasp the significance of Pirsig's metaphysics. What he has done is extend the idea of morality to all behavior including the behavior of atoms, viruses, bugs, plants and animals. The relevant passage in Lila in which Pirsig challenges the deterministic view of science is as follows: "It (the MOQ) says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of value and moral judgement are identical. The "Laws of Nature" are moral laws. Of course it sounds peculiar at first and awkward and unnecessary to say that hydrogen and oxygen form water because it is moral to do so. But it is no less peculiar and awkward and unnecessary than to say chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do it. In the past the logic has been that if chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws of cause and effect too. But this logic can be applied in a reverse direction. We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation that chemistry professors are, in general, moral. If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too. The difference between these two points of view is philosophic, not scientific. The question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness"-this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." (Lila, 12) Many of us are convinced that Pirsig's bold move has resulted in a better description of reality than has heretofore been offered by any philosophy. In Lila he shows why he and we believe this to be so. Best regards, Platt On 6 Dec 2009 at 1:39, Ham Priday wrote: > 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 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/
