On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:57:10 +0100, you wrote:
>Ian,
>you've put your finger on something: no metaphysic is really complete
>without providing either a 'theory of competance', or a description of how
>it relates to such a theory.
>It's the one area in which I feel somewhat uncomfortable with Pirsig: in
>proposing a universe which sort of 'runs on morality', there seems to be
>nowhere in which one can incorporate discussion about competance. The
>implication seems to be that if one gets one's mind right, one can be
>exceedingly competant in perceiving quality, and thus (empirically) someone
>who demonstrates a competant grasp of quality issues must be somehow more
>'moral'.
I doubt that Pirsig would imagine that his view is all encompassing.
Though some hereabouts would seem to believe so. Morality is aside
from quality.
It is, I would believe, the great question that has somehow been
removed from the minds of the mass of humanity. We no longer question
"should I do this" just "can I do this' or "how can I do this better".
>But this presumes we start on a level playing field, in terms of
>opportunities, equipment (mental and sensory), and so on... - which I don't
>think is so at all. As you point out (and imply), genetics, sociological
>factors, and so on will combine in a wide and unpredictable variety of ways,
>to provide a wide variety of opportunities and impedances.
Certainly true from my experience.
>Further, while it seems undoubtedly true that one can 'lose wisdom' -become
>effectively more stupid - by making wrong (even 'immoral') choices (for
>instance by becoming progressively more obsessed with money, to relate this
>to the other thread), this is by no means the only possible cause;
>circumstances, and choices by other people may well achieve the same effect.
Well, I'm not sure that I view it in quite as clear-cut a manner. As I
commented before I do not believe in "one size fits all" solutions.
They don't work for me.
Further, our choices in life effect these things greatly. Not good or
bad choices, simply choices. When I talk to friends who have children
they live in a vastly different world to myself. The day to day
necessities of raising a family use up so much time/effort that their
consideration of "metaphysics" is somewhat reduced.
Talking to the parents of these friends one finds that, those who have
survived, have now returned to wondering what it is all about. Is it
wisdom to wonder how and why it all works? Is it wisdom to rely upon
the, self evident, wisdom of nature and "just do it". I do not believe
that one way is better than another. They are simply ways and we ARE
our choices.
The question of freewill is irrelevant. We are our choice and our
experiences. It appears as if it is choice much as pseudo random
number generators *appear* to produce randomness.
>I think this is the area where I'm uncomfortable with many systems of
>thinking which imply that all the choices you will face are actually
>personal ones, and that you are (or should be) in charge of your own
>destiny. For this to be literally true, one would have to be a control freak
>of extraordinary magnitude, and further one would have to successfully
>manipulate all those around one to the extent that one would actually be
>infringing their individual right-to-choice. I know this is inherent in life
>as a pack-animal, that one would have to jostle for one's 'space', but if
>everyone were to be so self-determined (and therefore so 'moral'), we
>wouldn't actually be able to live with each other at all, or even
>communicate very effectively!.........
Actually it goes much further than this. Were we to eschew "society"
and go it alone we would have to spend so much time to simply feed and
cloth ourselves that we wouldn't really have much time for anything
else. Science, art, religion are all by products of the shorter amount
of time it takes to meet our needs achieved by the gestalt of our
social systems.
This without any "conflict" ,which we might reasonably expect in going
it alone.
It is a dilemma that we all face every day of our lives. Do I row with
the masses or go it alone. I think that the reason things get "better"
over time (arguably) is that non-moral decisions are essentially
"selfish" (thereby narrow of scope) and moral decisions are "selfless"
and therefore broader of scope.
The big illustration of this that comes to mind was the holocaust.
Ignoring meme's like Godwins law there is much to be learned from
looking at what transpired. Was it a "quality" event. It manifested
all the signs of being a quality event. It was extremely efficient and
effective in doing what it wanted to do. Industrial methods applied to
a goal and a mass of people energised to achieve it. Giant
pharmaceutical companies manufactured the "product". Salesmen sold it
as a "efficient" solution to a problem. An entire society turned a
blind eye whilst it took place.
In listening to the debates about it as history it all seems to focus
upon the logistics (read quality) of it. The morality of what took
place is no different to *me* were it to happen to 2000 people or
2000000.
Morality and quality? Which is which? This is worse than the planting
of chicken pox laden blankets with native American peoples, in some
way.
It is somehow worse than the US government feeding radioactive
materials to the mentally ill during the Manhattan project. It is
worse than the British government testing harmful chemicals on the
population of London in the underground system. It is worse than the
Soviet Union deporting masses to guffaws. It is worse than what is
transpiring in Africa as we speak.
To me the reason is that the action was "selfless" and therefore it's
scope far greater. People will always do what I consider to be immoral
for personal gain. That's life and, arguably, within our genes. When
these actions take on a selfless nature they actually compete in the
moral arena. A redefinition of what is *right* is far more concerning
than an action of wrong.
Quality may well be coded into our gene sequences. That is what we
consider to be quality is a reflection of a genetic coding for a
predisposition to actions/thinking/methods which are *effective* (as
measured by improving ones genes chances of survival). These codings
will be reinforced by the social structures around them. Our parents
reflect their parents ad infinitum. The strong survive and the weak go
to the wall.
Then there is the quality of connection to <whatever>.
So, in summation. Is morality simply a coding of an efficient set of
methods for achieving "quality"?
regards,
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST