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
