To Lithien, Ken, Peter, Roger, Paul N. and others who are interested in the
topic.
A while ago, I had quite an involved discussion with Doug Renselle about
evil in the Metaphysics of Quality which allowed me to formulate some of the
thoughts contained here. While I did not concur with the methods of Doug's
attack on evil (in part because his focus on it gave the concept "evil" more
validity than needed, in my opinion) and I was even successful in swaying
him slightly :), I pretty much agreed with him on the "perceived" concept of
evil within the Metaphysics of Quality. If anyone is interested, his
quantonics website is at
http://www.quantonics.com/index.html
Ken Clark writes:
Evil does not exist in universal Quality up through biological Quality.
Glove:
I have only had an opportunity to respond to one or two of all the great
posts concerning evil in the Metaphysics of Quality, and I keep going back
to Pirsig's definition of evil as a perceived stasis, one that denys the
free flowing Dynamic force of life/death. I believe there could well be a
perceived stasis, or evil, within the biological level. In Peter's message
of 1/18/99 he asks:
Could the
'fixing' of the dynamic quality inherent in sexual reproduction into a
static genetic code carried forward generation after generation
represent the ultimate evil or could it offer a path by which a stable
biological pattern of values might more rapidly 'evolve' to a higher
intellectual plane ?
Glove:
The way I see it, Dynamic Quality cannot be "fixed" within static quality.
It can only be locked out, so to speak, resulting in a stasis, or a
perceived evil according to the Metaphysics of Quality. Any attempt to "fix"
Dynamic Quality will result in stagnation and extinction, not further
evolution. I suppose you could view that as an ultimate evil if you wished.
And with our fast-growing genetic engineering capabilities, some serious
ethical questions are sure to be challenged very soon.
In my opinion, this is a prime example of where the Metaphysics of Quality
can provide very valuable answers to some of these ethical questions.
Conventional right or wrong type thinking will in itself prevent Dynamic
advances whereas the many truths type thinking of the Metaphysics of Quality
allows for the unanticipated to happen.
Roger:
Below is my answer to 5 simple questions on evil as explained in the MOQ.
Please feel free to answer these yourself, and let me know if your answers
are
different.
1)Is evil a separate or distinct force?
No.
Glove: If it is perceived as separate and distinct, then that is what it is.
If it is not, then it is not. Both views are correct.
Roger:
2)Does evil exist?
Yes.
Glove:
If there is perceived stasis within the Metaphysics of Quality, then there
is perceived evil. If evil is valued, then it exists.
Roger:
3)What is evil?
Evil is defined as
a. Conflicting moral codes, or
b. Interference with the advancement of DQ.
Glove:
Evil is defined in the Metaphysics of Quality as any perceived stasis. This
could incorporate both or either a and b above, but only as perceived.
Roger:
4) Is evil necessary?
Yes, the first type is necessary because conflicting value forces is one
of
the drivers toward DQ and freedom. Avoidance of death drives evolution.
Glove:
No, evil is not necessary. In your a. to question #3 above, the different
underlying value forces in the biological, social and intellect levels may
be perceived as conflicting forces of Good and Evil between the levels and
even within them, it is true. But it is not necessarily true that this is
the only way the value forces can be perceived, or even should be perceived
for that matter.
I am unsure if avoidance of death is what drives evolution or not. It seems
to me as much death as life is needed for evolution to even occur at all. I
will have to consider this more carefully.
Roger:
5) How can we explain Hitler and Dahmer?
In answer, how can a cow explain hamburgers? Our juicy quality is their
death. I believe quality for people who perceive the world as evil includes
destruction. If people seem bad, then killing people seems good. If Jews
seem bad, then killing Jews seems good.
Glove:
I will pass on this question. I find I really am not qualified to attempt
any explanation whatsoever, for I have none.
Lithien writes:
dear paul:
i like when you say:
<but kurtz let himself fall from civilization and he became
objective and clear and he knew. he knew the horror of the truth.
lithien:
you know what that reminds me of? the fall from Eden. when man and woman
tasted of the fruit of good and evil, they saw clearly and knew the horror
of the truth: their mortality. to me that represents the moment when
consciousness separated from the unconscious and we became aware of
ourselves as separate from the rest. that is why we were expulsed from
Eden.
do you remember the moment when you realized what death was?
Glove:
I am still unsure what death is. I realize it comes for us all sooner or
later, but I cannot really say just when it was that I first realized that.
I have seen that death can be easy and natural, just as living should be,
but I have also seen it can be hard for those who are not yet ready to let
go. I guess it all boils down to what it is that we cling to. Since Dynamic
Quality cannot be isolated and latched onto in any way, it would seem to me
that to the extent we follow the free-flowing creative and destructive
forces of value, death becomes a "non-place and time" inconceivable in any
fashion.
What do you think?
best wishes to all
glove
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