Hi Struan, Jonathan, Platt, Roger and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all
On 16 Jan 99, at 13:03, Struan Hellier wrote:
> Are we not introducing an unwarranted dualism here? Zen rejects the notion
> of evil as a reality and this rejection is also one of the defining
> features of mysticism. I submit that evil has no place in the MoQ either.
I'd agree with that. Not just because of the Zen rejection of Evil but because the
structure of the MOQ doesn't require it. Good and evil are replaced by the degree to
which Quality inheres in a pattern or patterns. Good and Evil are notions of Value in a
non-value centred Metaphysics which is why they create such havoc and
disagreement. Good and Evil are "Subjective" and therefore dismissable as mere
opinion.
> In a dualistic sense one could, for example, argue that shadow is a real
> and necessary corollary of light. How can we know shadow if there is no
> light? But, is it not more accurate to consider shadow as the absence of
> light? Shadow is the place where light isn't, rather than a reality in
> itself. In the same way evil can be seen as being a lack of good not as a
> separate reality. This is one of the major contentions of Zen Buddhism
> which argues that it is perfectly possible to have good without evil - if
> everything were light there would be no shadow.
Shadow and Light are also present by degree and it is also difficult to say at which
point does light become shadow. Similarly with Good and Evil, if they are replaced by
the degree to which Value inheres. Also, in an MOQ context something may be of
high Value at one evolutionary level and of low Value at another. From the traditional
viewpoint this creates a dichotomy but from an MOQ viewpoint the two can be easily
discerned in terms of Value.
> The connotations for the MoQ are that there can be no evil, only a lack of
> Quality. 'Evil' is merely the default position of an amoral and empty
> universe while Quality is the moral force and pattern which populates it.
As a Universal Evil, yes, I agree. The term "Evil" with all it's religious and social
connotations can be replaced by low value and "Good" as high value. The idea of the
many truths or a multitude of "Goods"(?) then makes more sense - well it does to me
anyway.
> I'm not sure this helps the morality question much, but it does strike me
> as quite important that we don't get bogged down in dualism.
It can be of use in terms of Value (=moral) in that it provides a means to differentiate
between what is of high value for one level and low value for another. Also the degree of
morality in a particular context etc.
HORSE & JONATHAN:
> I agree with your points. However I don't like your term, 'scientific
> materialism.' I think it might be better to stick with 'popular
> materialism' and 'coherent materialism' simply because there are many
> materialist scientists who do hold a coherent view.
That sounds reasonable enough. Now all we have to do is determine what a 'coherent
materialism' entails and its repercussions with respect to the MOQ. Piece of ... er,
cake!
> If you told my brother
> (a research astronomer at Keele University) that his coherent materialism
> is therefore not 'scientific materialism' he would respond in an agitated
> and negative manner while giving you a lecture about how scientific his
> coherent materialism really is.
I imagine his telescope would also provide an amount of discomfort for the accusor too
:)
> We are discussing terms here not concepts,
> but I think this is important if the MoQ is to be 'sold' to the academic
> community.
And, along with providing an indivdual understanding of the MOQ for those that are
interested, this is one of the main aims of MOQ.ORG.
Horse
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