Hi Platt
I sent a reply to David Lind first in order to start trying to make sense of this Moral/Good idea
that's being discussed
On 7 Jan 00, at 9:57, Platt Holden wrote:
> HORSE:
> The point I’m making here is that from the MoQ perspective what exists is
> moral - this appears to be a basic axiom of the MoQ, but what is Good is not
> identical to what exists.
>
> PLATT
> Wait a minute. The whole point of Pirsig’s final paragraph in Lila is to state
> unequivocally that what is Good IS identical with what exists:
>
> “Good is a noun. That was it. That was what Phaedrus had been looking for.
> That was the homer, over the fence, that ended the ball game. Good as a
> noun rather than as an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is about.”
>
> How you can get any plainer than that? “Good is all the Metaphysics of
> Quality is about.” And you say Good is NOT what the MoQ is about? I don’t
> get it.
No, I'm not saying that the MoQ is not about Good, what I am saying is that there is a
difference between what is real (what exists) and what is Good. Not everything that exists is
Good, but everything that exists is moral. It is the difference between Moral and Good that I
have referred to - or to be more precise the relationship that exists between Moral and Good
but IN THE MOQ SENSE.
>
> Your idea of what exists seems to follow the lines of a scientific perspective
> as opposed to Pirisg’s Quality perspective:
>
> HORSE:
> The first thing that is necessary is to dump the idea of causality as
> foundational which is inherent in a Materialistic, deterministic, cause and
> effect doctrine in favour of a contributory or participative view of reality which I
> believe the MoQ supports. In this scheme it is contribution to and
> participation in the world which creates reality not the rigid physical laws of
> matter.
I would have thought that at this point it would be fairly obvious that I'm referring to an holistic
Quality perspective - this does not mean that I have to rule out a scientific perspective
though. Science and the scientific method are of very high Quality, it is only when those
involved with science (or any other endeavour) deny the existence of value (at an intrinsic
level) that I think problems start to occur.
> PLATT
> You continue along this line of thought which reminded me of the following
> passage from Lila:
>
<SNIP>
>
> I’m not saying your line of thought is about substance or objects, but it
> reflects the kind of nonjudgmental, moral-free thinking that science insists
> on. In fact, I suspect that perhaps your motive for separating the good from
> the moral is to allow for a melding of current scientific thinking with the MoQ
> without stirring up a hornet’s nest of problems in challenging scientific
> “objectivity.” After all, your “participative view of reality” says nothing about
> value, quality, morality or goodness that, if interjected, would raise scientific
> hackles. Am I warm? (Or, more likely, have I missed the whole point? Even
> after reading your post to Walter that just arrived, I still don’t get it. I must be
> really dense about this.)
It depends what you mean by 'current scientific thinking' as this covers an awful lot of
ground. There is a move in some areas of science that says that to think in terms of
reductive methodology is incorrect and that an holistic, participative approach is the best
way to go. For some, this approach accepts value as intrinsic in nature (as well as
instrumental) and assumes the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Within this greater whole, value, quality, morality and goodness are accepted and
acceptable pre-requisites. It is also quite true that within this mode Quality is not seen as
the fundamental groundstuff of reality. It is my belief that if this were the case a number of
problems would be removed.
If you want to find out more about this approach then a reasonable starter is Fritjof Capra's
'Web of Life'. For more detailed information go to the sources Capra provides. If you read this
book with what I have said in mind, you'll maybe see that the MoQ is probably the most
appropriate metaphysical system.
<SNIP>
> PLATT
> What Mark is proposing is a top-down morality. I’d be most interested in
> your thoughts about this. A “participative universe” may mean that what’s
> participating and making things happen is the force of Dynamic Quality from
> the top-down, leaving static patterns in its wake. Does this idea fit in with
> your scientific view of existence in any way? What do you think about top-
> down morality?
Walter has already pointed out that Mark is not proposing a top-down approach so I won't
labour that point any more.
A 'participative universe' is, I think compatible with Walter's view of Bottom-Up morality in
that participation implies relationships between participators. In fact there is really nothing
else that makes sense in MoQ terms - interacting patterns of value.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'my' scientific view of existence. Science is part of
my view of reality and I'm one of these strange folk that believe that science and technology
have provided the tools to make life better for a great number of people and will hopefully
continue to do so for a great deal more. But I don't believe that it is only science and
technology that can do so. A Quality existence requires many and varied experiences to
which science and technology contribute. But let's also not be coy about the importance of
science and technology - the majority of people in the western culture would last more than
a few days without the benefits that they provide.
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 - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST