Re: LS PROGRAM: Knowing right vs. being righteous

From: Mary (mwittler@geocities.com)
Date: Mon Jun 14 1999 - 09:21:00 BST


Greetings LS!

Rob Stillwell 6/11/99:
I think man makes choice independent of experienced value -- his dynamic and
static experiences. It is only the _effects_ that makes his choices feel
dynamic to others.
You can not directly observe someone else's
consciousness/choices/preferences. There can only be inference. Yet, value
is known directly. There is a mind/value dualism problem that needs
explaining.

I'm not sure I follow you, Rob. I would have said just the opposite! Man
makes choices based on experienced value. Do I misunderstand?

Mark Brooks 6/9/99:
>This leads, as Rich, Roger, and others noted, into some questions about
>free will and what it means to choose one course of action over another.
>While this might be ranging some from the main topic, it is interesting
>ground that seems to come up often.

>These issues seem relevant because if you accept the Socrates statement,
>you seem to be denying free will in some form. This contradicts the moral
>basis of the MoQ. Why would morality even exist if man could never
>knowingly choose something of lesser quality? What would be the point? This
>statement attributed to Socrates seems like another attack on Quality from
>a proponent of Truth.

On 6/5/99 at 12:40 PM -0400, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com (Roger) wrote:
> The second fundamental concern with Pirsig's definition of Free Will is
> that it hinges upon "the extent that one follows". Who or what exactly
> wills or chooses to follow DQ? Can you choose to follow/not follow it?

Mark Brooks 6/9/99:
>A man operating on all four static levels shows more free
>will than a grape only operating on one or two static levels at a time. A
>holdover idea from SOM would be to believe that that as long as man is
>thinking he possesses free will. Also, a grape could never possess free
>will in SOM terms. The MoQ perspective would be that the grape is showing
>some aspects of free will simply by being alive and, for that matter, so is
>the man. The difference is that the man can show more aspects of free will
>on more levels. SOM artificially hordes free will for humanity, MoQ does
>not while still realizing that a man has more free will than a grape.

Very well put, Mark!

Mark Brooks 6/9/99:
>Finally, not only is a man who has learned about right not necessarily
>righteous, but the same applies to molecules and societies and everything
>else. Nothing always chooses the best known outcome or there would not be a
>"choice" involved at all. Choice is fundamental to morality and, in my
>opinion, choice is fundamental to the MoQ.

I think I've decided that righteousness is a SOM concept. It has no
parallel in the MOQ. The condition of being righteous is determined by a
Subject making a judgment about an Object. Righteousness implies that there
is one correct answer, one Truth; but, the MOQ does not subscribe to this.
On Pg. 114 (Teal PB), Pirsig has this to say, "...if Quality or excellence
is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one
set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth". One
seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with
the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation
must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along."

So, having accepted this idea, I think the answer to the question, "Does the
MoQ support Socrates when he says, "A man who has learned about right will
be righteous?" is - lets define what it means to have "learned about right".

If you have "learned about right" in MOQ terms then you have come to
understand what each of the 4 levels we currently know about values. Since
everything is Value (or Quality, or Morals) and you yourself are a unique
collection of patterns of Value, or Quality, or Morals, then it follows that
you will always act in accordance with what you value. I think every
person, grape, molecule, and bit of dust will always act in accordance with
its current set of Values, and that whatever it is that is valued is also
good by definition. To clarify, the set of Values comprising a bit of dust
consist only of Values held by the Inorganic Level, while the Values
comprising a typical ;) Homo Sapiens Sapiens consists of all 4 levels in
combination. The operative phrase here, though is "current set of Values".

Each of us and everything we can point to is nothing more nor less than a
set of Values; but each of us, as Value sets, is constantly being exposed to
Dynamic Quality and thus constantly subject to change. From our lofty perch
in the Lila Squad we may feel that some sets of Values are of higher Quality
than others - and we are right! ;) But each person can only act in accord
with His or Her personal set of Values (to put it in SOM terms).

In MOQ terms, the set of Value patterns of which we are composed will always
act to support itself, and THAT is the highest Quality action that
particular set of Values is capable of. Remember, we are told that things
we do not value do not exist, so unless a Dynamic Quality event is
experienced by a set of Values, that set of Values (that person) will be
unable to change, grow, advance toward a higher good (or Quality or Value
set or Morality). So, at any given moment in time each of us is always
acting in accord with our current Value set, which is exactly what we should
be doing if we value survival. Each of us is always acting on the highest
level of Morality that exists for us. For our unique set of Values, we are
always right - "... provisionally...until something better comes along".

Best wishes,
Mary

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:45 GMT