Thanks for the response Horse....I'll admit, when I posted the "am I being too simple" post - it was late and my brain was tired, but it just seems like there's too much discussing about "was this moral?" "was that moral?" - and it seems to me that everything that has happened in the world and everything in it is moral and has value - or it would not be here/happened. Do I think all things are equal? Nope. Democracy has more value than Nazism. That's why it's still here. They both were moral (not the "right" vs "wrong" moral) - but one has more good, n'est pas? I am really working hard at putting the whole "moral" vs "good" vs "right/wrong" in terms that are everyday and easily understood. One of the problems I have with this forum is that some of the posts seem like they would only make sense if you have a advanced degree in philosophy. I get lost in the convoluted speech. Less is more. Simple is good. Shalom David Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]Hi All
On 8 Jan 00, at 5:45, David Lind wrote:
> Let me see.....Pirsig says that the universe is made up of quality.
> And that it's a moral order. That proteins developed because that
> particular combination of "stuff" (inorganic patterns of value) had
> more value (was better) than other options. This continues on and on.
> So, it would seem that whatever exists today is there because it was
> better than whatever else was there, no? And doesn't that make the
> universe moral? Everything that exists, does so because it has value?
> How can the universe be anything other than moral (ultimately) if
> everything in it exists only because it has value?
> So, it seems that it's not that there are things that are moral and
> things that are not, but that everything that exists is moral by the
> simple fact that it has value (or it wouldn't exist) - the difference
> is that some things are more moral (have more value) than others.
>
> Am I making sense?
Yes David you are. When you say that the difference is that some things are more moral than other, this is where, I think, that the Good arises.
What exists is moral by definition - something exists therefore it is moral, but in the MoQ sense NOT the traditional static social moral code that we are taught to believe is moral. But it is not the case that everything that exists is an instance of the Good. Moq Existence/Morality and MoQ Good are strongly inter-related but not identical.
I believe the problem here is caused by overlaying the traditional term (and belief) of what is Good/Moral with the MoQ meaning of Good and it is the MoQ meaning that I am trying to get at. But the Good from an MoQ perspective is as different to it's traditional meaning as the traditional Moral is to the MoQ moral. If you begin with a completely different metaphysical starting point but continue to try and superimpose traditional definitions on top you get the sort of problems we are seeing now.
MoQ Moral and S/O Moral are as different as MoQ Good and S/O Good.
Am I making sense?
Horse
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]
