Struan, Mary, Platt and squad,
It seems to me that where we get into trouble with our definitions is
that we attempt to define morality, good, value, etc. in terms of what is
the perceived good of the human race.
If we look at the origins of our situation here we can better define
morality, good, value etc. in terms of our overall relationship to the
evolution of the universe. Looking at our position in the context of the
evolution of the universe it seems to me that the workings of universal
evolution, since it has produced us, cannot fail to be beneficial to the
human race since we are part and parcel of the process. In this view,
morality, good, value, Quality are bestowed on us by universal evolution
and our responsibility should be to exist in harmony with that process.
Since our immediate concern is the viability of the Earth we should devote
ourselves to living in harmony with the living entity that is the
biosphere. It is when we allow our immediate concerns to cloud our
judgement and cause us to make decisions that are detrimental to the only
home that we have in the universe that we begin to make immoral and
valueless decisions.
That is why I separate universal Quality and Human Quality in my mind.
The two are not always compatible. The first area of agreement we need to
thresh out is the definition of Quality, Value, good, and morality in terms
of our true position in the universe. If we wish to view Quality as God
that is fine as long as we don't interpret our immediate desires as his
commandments. Ken
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:48 BST