Hi Joe --
On Thurs, 8/18/11 5:16 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham and All,
DQ, indefinable levels in existence, evolution, makes sense to me,
a base for a moral hierarchy.
Is evolution a meaningless word? Your use of the word "morality",
on a site exploring the meaning of DQ/SQ indicates to me a decisive
judgment for good or bad behavior without indicating the
metaphysical basis for judgment beyond an acceptance in faith.
Imho "Moral" value tied to evolution for value-sensibility is a judgment,
beyond the Yes or No of SOM. DQ, indefinable, is the arbiter for
sense or nonsense in an individual. SQ, defined, is the judgment.
Indefinable levels mean nothing to me unless I try to define them, and then
they take on the properties of my imagination. In Pirsig's imagination they
supported a "moral hierarchy", but there is nothing implicitly moral about
evolutionary existence. For me, existence is an ordered, self-sufficient
system which encompasses a diversity of finite entities ranging from the
simplest to the most complex. Because I experience existence as a sequence
of events, I tend to view it as a causal process that moves the world to
greater complexity. But this, in itself, is not morality but rather a
design that represents in diversity what its source is absolutely, while
affording a life-supporting environment for sensible creatures.
Good or bad behavior can occur for many reasons, the most noteworthy being a
response to one's core values. Rather than a judgment call, I prefer to
think of value-sensibility as "preferential". So, when you say I offer no
metaphysical basis for judgment, you overlook the metaphysical principle of
free agency which, in my opinion, is the whole point of conscious
existence.in a relational system. The free agent is not "tied to evolution
for value-sensibility". On the contrary, value-sensibility is the essential
core of individuality (selfness) whereby virtue and morality come into being
in our evolutionary world.
Reason, not Quality (DQ or sq), is the arbiter of sense and nonsense, and
reason is a product of the human intellect, just as morality is a product of
human sensibility. Value (or what you folks call Quality) is man's affinity
for the absolute Source. Experienced only differentially, it neither
controls him nor tells him what is right or wrong. That decision is left to
the free agent who, as Protagoras famously observed, "is the measure of all
things."
Valuistically speaking,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
Yes, progress is being made even as we speak. As I've said before,
morality
is a human precept, which means that value-sensibility is prerequisite
for
moral judgment. This precept "doesn't quite fit" the MoQ paradigm which
posits Value (Quality) as a universal truth or principle.
<snip>
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
