Platt, Very nice summary, thanks. I'm still not sure how this answers the questions of the conflict between different systems, and how to know the good-or how a society can be based on such a system. But I'll ponder it a bit more.
What if the Bible is right when it describes an impariment in man's ablity to know the good, or anything. And what if these two ideas, evil and man's self deceptive nature are relatied-"The heart of man is desperately wicked, decietful above all things: who can know it?" What if man is depraved and can't redeem himself. This Christian doctrine, was clearly an important step in the evolution of man's understanding of morality. It looks to me like this will lead only to the domination of the strongest. I wonder what features of the moq that all on the list would agree to. Thanks Jon On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Since you asked you may find the principles of the MOQ below to shed > some light. At least it could be the start of an interesting discussion. > One > caveat: not everyone agrees with these principles, but Pirsig described > them > as "excellent." So, as a reflection of the MOQ they have some authenticity. > > > So let me ask any of you who think I don't understand moq...what is the > > postition of differing views? How is such conflict to be dealt with, and > how > > can a civil society be ordered by those who can't be civil on a > discussion > > list. > > > > All views, values, are not the same...they conflict as we have seen. So > how > > do we choose what laws, norms, ethical and legal, to build society on. > > > > I know P tries to avoid relativim of values, yet he does in other places > > seem to say none are right or wrong, they just are. This is my point. > Many > > world views, and their values, and the laws that stem from them are > mutually > > incompatible. Not only this, they are mutually offensive. Not only this, > > they are mutually blasphemous. > > > > How amongst all do we choose a world view and a value system? > > > > One other point on the Platt-Pirsig quote. Pirsig seems to think that > such > > values regarding rights are a good thing. OK, but where does he think > they > > come from and how can they best be sustained. > > > > I would like to have a serious discussion on this and other issues with > > those who can do so with the more mature members of this group. Those who > > have more heat than light, whose egos are easily bruised when someone > dare > > to disagree with them, who worship the great void between their ears, are > > free to ignore me. > > Principles of the Metaphysics of Quality > > The Quality Principle. Quality is simultaneously an immanent and > transcendent > moral force. It created and gave purpose to our world, motivated by the > ethical > principle of the "Good" which is its essence. Quality is synonymous with > "morality" and "value." Thus, the world is primarily a moral order, > consisting > not of subjects (mental things) and objects (material things) but patterns > of > value. > > The Awareness Principle. The essence of quality is known to us as awareness > without content-pure, unpatterned experience. As such, it's impossible to > describe. Whenever we try, we end up describing what we are aware of, not > awareness itself. > > The Dynamic/Static Principle. To explain the inexplicable, the Metaphysics > of > Quality divides quality into two parts, Dynamic and Static. Dynamic Quality > is > the moral imperative to create; Static Quality is the moral imperative to > survive. > > The Levels Principle. Quality became manifest in our world by an > evolutionary > sequence of Dynamic Quality Events. Left in the wake of these events were > four > static levels of evolution-inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. > Each > level is a static pattern of Quality, organized and governed by its own > unique > moral laws-the laws of physics, biology, culture and reason respectively. > > The Awareness Hierarchy Principle. Each higher level evolved from and > included > the lower but expanded awareness. For example, the intellectual level can > apprehend mathematical patterns that the lower levels cannot. Also, all > levels > possess, in addition to environmental awareness, an awareness of values. > Even a > lowly virus knows what's good for it. > > The Moral Hierarchy Principle. Because higher levels are more aware, they > are > more moral than levels below. Intellectual patterns take moral precedence > over > social patterns, social patterns over biological and biological patterns > over > inorganic. > > The First Dominance Principle. Because a lower level is largely unaware of > levels above it, it considers itself to be the most moral and strives to > dominate other levels. What is moral and lawful at one level is often > immoral > and unlawful at another. For example, biological laws defy the laws of > physics. > > The Second Dominance Principle. Static patterns within levels that humans > identify as entities are possessed by varying degrees of Quality depending > on > their affinity to the next higher or lower level. They often try to devour > other patterns to enhance their own survival. This causes suffering, the > negative face of Quality that drives the creative process. > > The Dependency Principle. When a higher level attempts to assert its moral > dominance over a lower level, it must be careful that it does not endanger > the > stability of the lower level on which it ultimately depends for survival. > For > example, if the intellect in its quest for freedom from social inhibitions > causes social instability, intellect will suffer. > > The Individual Principle. At the present stage of moral evolution, only > living > beings can respond to Dynamic Quality. Humans, composites of all four > levels, > are the most capable of responding. However, responses to and evaluations > of > Quality vary by individual because each has a different static pattern of > life > history. > > The Truth Principle. Truth, an intellectual value pattern, is a species of > Good. There's no single, exclusive truth, but those of high quality are > empirical, logical, elegant and brief. In any case, it's immoral for truth > to > be subordinated to social values. > > The Freedom Principle. To create ever higher levels of awareness, Dynamic > Quality strives for freedom from all static patterns. Freedom is the core > value > and highest Good in the Metaphysics of Quality. Thus, the best social and > intellectual patterns are those that promote freedom consistent with > maintaining the static patterns necessary for survival. > > The Proof Principle. That reality is morality strikes most people as loony. > But > in denying that the world is a moral order they have to employ moral > judgment. > They cannot refute that Quality is reality without asserting a value. And > they > will have to concede that it´s impossible to live without assumptions of > what > is Good. For life requires action, action presupposes choice, choice > presupposes purpose and purpose presupposes values. > > Regards, > Platt > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
