For Bo and all, In a recent exchange between Bo and I, Bo Wrote: "...As always I suspect that you by 'morality' mean ETHICS - which in SOM is what you must do to be a good citizen, or - at a more elevated plane, but somish to the hilt - to be a good person,and if this still is believed to be the (only) QUALITY of the MOQ ...phew?" This got me thinking. Are ethics the only Quality of the MoQ??? The answer comes quickly... Of course not. In the MoQ ethics are merely social values - the things one must do to be a good citizen (an elementary formulation of what "ethics" are, but we get the point). Now, outside the world of the MoQ, in conventional language, "ethics" is equivalent to "morality". Fore example, we might say that one who returns another's wallet with the money still inside has behaved morally or or we might say they behave ethically--- same thing. But in the MoQ, as Bo loves to point out to me, "morality" no longer is equivalent to "ethics". Rather, "morality" is equivalent to "Quality". And "Quality" is not the same as "Ethics" (and rightfully so IMHO). Now, I have no objection to the evolution of terms, if "morality" and "ethics" are no longer to be same (within the MoQ) then so be it. But now, it gets a bit confusing.... And I'm not the only one who's confused by this: "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality create life the MoQ postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" - this begining response to Dynamic Quality - is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." LILA pg. 181 Catch that? EVERYTHING is an ETHICAL activity. So with this quote we get : Quality = Morality = Reality = Ethics (and we have no terms left to describe only good old social right and wrong). So if "moral" goods are no longer is the same thing as those social "ethical goods" which philosophers, theologists, and the like have argued about forever than what is the advantage of equating "morality" with "Quality"? Now Morality/Ethics/Quality are just synonyms for "good" or "betterness". Of course, it's ridiculous if you try to replace "betterness" with "ethics" in any practical sense... "this sandwich is more ethical than the one I had yesterday" "your solution to this math problem is more ethical than mine" .....it's absurd and essentially meaningless. I guess my ultimate problem with the Quality = Morality = Reality = Ethics = (God knows what else) equation is that it robs us of four useful words by blending them into one term... (a term that remains undefined except for with examples, which isn't really defining at all) ...and we don't gain much for our loss. Sure, we know now that Quality = Morality.... but Morality no longer means what it used to.... it's just a synonym for Quality.... and so is Ethical.... and so is Reality.... So "Quality = Morality" really just breaks down to "Quality = Quality".... all of these formulations do, because the original meanings of the words must be discarded in order for the equation to make sense. Enough for now, All is Good, All is Ethical, All is Quality, All is Reality, All is Morality (choose your favorite, but their all the same), Rick MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
