Mder's
I've been following the discussion but keep delaying any response in hope that
"Eureka" will occur.
It hasn't so I'll send my tack, maybe it will help.
Is the MoQ a "moral compass"? Or is "compass" the most appropriate metaphor? If not,
what is?
Platt thinks, "that's there's a practical moral compass hiding in it
somewhere."
Jonathan disagrees, "I don't accept that the MoQ is a moral compass. I
didn't like it when Platt said it, and I don't like it when you [DMB] did."
John B concluded his insightful commentary, "What he cannot give us
is some static system to predict this in advance. To that extent a
practical moral compass is an impossibility."
DMB claims it's, "Nothing but a moral compass."
Ken's position is that there are at least two different compasses; an original
("Big Bang") one, and a sentient (human) one.
One basic division of morals is into absolute and relative. For an absolutist, moral
obligations are given, whereas for a relativist they must be chosen in one way or
another. If,
�Quality is morality. " then what qualities of the MoQ are absolute, or given, and
must be
accepted [given of course, one has the freedom to choose], and which are relative
or involve
choice? IMHO all metaphysical quests are searches for absolutes in the nature of
being or reality
(ontology) and the origin and structure of the universe (cosmology). Unfortunately,
if history is
any indication, metaphysical absolutes are few and far between. RMP acknowledges as
much by saying,
"The world comes to us in an endless stream of puzzle pieces that we would like
to think all fit together somehow, but that in fact never do. pp 102
While crafting a perfect metaphysics may be impossible, it would seem that a good one
should have a
very limited number of absolutes. So if I had to pick what are the absolutes of the
MoQ right now
my list would start with;
�Quality is the primary empirical reality of the world� Lila-pp 67
�Quality was value. They were the same thing� Lila-pp 58 �
�Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
abstractions.� Lila-pp 64
�Static Quality is the class of stable or accepted values, patterns, laws,
customs, and theories that societies have formalized and that change little
over
time. �Dynamic Quality�, on the other hand, are those values which are
outside of any society, that cannot be contained by any system of precepts,
but
have to be continually rediscovered as a culture evolves� Lila-pp 58 �
"Static quality.....emerges in the wake of Dynamic Quality pg. 133
"All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic
Quality." pg. 160
.......I'd argue against additions and, if possible, try to shorten the list.
I don't see, other than the choice to accept or reject these, that choice is much
involved with, or
effects these claims. I hear you all clamoring, " But you left out..........."
Quality =Morals, Yep! Anything that was the least bit contingent, contextual, iffy,
flaky, or
potentially relative I left out. And... if I haven't weeded the relative out, show me
what to
strike, and why.
Once past this point all is relative. Based on, effected by, relevant to, indicative
of, choice.
Move from these absolutes and moral judgments must be made, chosen, in one way or
another. This
leads us into:
"Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived.
Nature tells us only what our culture predisposes us to hear. The
'selection' of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore
is made on the basis of social patterns of value, or when it is not, on
the basis of biological patterns of value." pg. 343
Our description of nature is relative to, based on choices made by our culture. It
follows all our
moral choices must be relative and RMP says as much here:
"The new cultural relativism became popular because it was a
ferocious instrument for the dominance of intellect over society ....
Society could no longer pass judgment on intellect." pg. 316
It's understandable we all want a devise that points to the moral, the good,
regardless of our
position on life's path. But the MoQ is not that "compass". It's better. It is, to
use Pirsig's
metaphor. a "foundation". A foundation on which to build a moral GPS system. The
excavation
started with Rigel's question "Does Lila have Quality." which led Phaedus to think,
" To answer him you have to go all the way back to fundamental
meanings of what is meant by morality and in this culture there
aren't any fundamental meanings of morality." (Lila p 97)
Which "event"-ually led to the construction of a foundation based on quality and
morality.
" This was one of the things that Ph�drus had long pondered and why
he finally settled on metaphysics. If he could find a broad enough
foundation, one that would encompass all of the existing structure, he
wouldn't have to rebuild at all.. He would merely slide it underneath.�
I've argued, on previous occasions, that "sliding foundations" under things is not a
easy task.
Regardless of the difficulty, "Moral foundation" still appears to me a much more
appropriate
metaphor for the MoQ than "compass". Sticking with the building metaphor, whether you
then choose to
assume that " all of the existing structure" is serviceable, in need of a paint job,
ready for a
major remodeling, or should imploded and rebuilt, the fact remains you have a new,
broad, foundation
on which to build your philosophical edifice.
However in this construction, " We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of
reason." ( pg.
183) and that is the strength of the MoQ.
The question is: How does one go about constructing a workable moral system that is
contingent,
contextual, or relative, without falling into the "anything goes" trap of relativism?
DLT
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
