ROGER ADDS TO THE HOLISTIC DISCUSSION OF MORALITY
To Platt, Lithien and Lilacs
ON 1/14/99 LITHIEN WROTE:
<<
one of the things which attracted me was [The MOQ's] hierarchy of
values. germs being less valuable than human life, for instance, we could
then make the moral judgement that we could kill germs to preserve human
life, etc. and i didnt understand why this was called subjective when i
thought it seemed very objective to see value in that manner...the higher
the level the more value it had. it seemed simple to me and i liked that
simplicity.
is there anything that would answer the question of evil in the MOQ?
anyone?
>>
ROGER RESPONDS:
Sorry to jump in in the middle, but I thought Platt's first answer was right
on target. Without evil there can be no good, and evil is a negative quality
that can actually drive life and the other level patterns forward. This was
one of the problems that caused our morality discussion to break down, as I
remember. In November, we ran in to the following brick walls on the efficacy
of the MOQ to 'objectively' evaluate morality:
1) Sorting out all the affected levels involved in any moral dillemma (ie
Clinton, Lewinski, Congress, Starr, America, justice, truth, power,
lust,biology , cigars, etc) I tried to sort these out with morality charts,
but the confusion can't be totally eliminated.
2) Relative morality between same level entities. (deer and lion). We saw the
emergence of higher levels as the partial solution to lower level relative
morality, and that synergy and cooperation tended to eliminate some of these
concerns, but this is another tough one to eliminate from the discussion.
3) The problem of evil. As you and Platt clarified, destruction can actually
drive progress.
We ended that month with a lack of consensus (what's new?), but my personal
take was that the MOQ explains evil, and does allow a context or foundation
from which to evaluate morality. The existence of beneficial effects of
Pirsig's 'forces of destruction' doesn't imply that Hitler was in any way
right, just that even from evil, higher DQ can emerge. In the mean time, I am
a bigger believer in cooperation and synergy. The down side is much less
likely, and the benefits are much clearer and more obviously probable. And
isn't that what 'a holistic approach' is all about?
Sorry to rehash old material, but sometimes a look in the rear view mirror can
be helpful. Besides, maybe some of you have new insights or disagree with my
summary.
Love and tickles,
Roger
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 - 16:02:49 BST