Platt,
It finally dawned on me that you had addressed your post to me as well as
to Horse.
Platt wrote:
Not to beat this into the ground but I wonder what limits, if any, one
places on the holistic "overall environment" view. Should one look all the
way back to the beginning of time and expand outward to include all of
space to the ends of the universe?
Clark writes:
As I view Quality it is the driving force that is responsible for the
pathway that the universe has taken from the moment of its inception. As to
whether Quality came into being along with the universe or whether it is
responsible for the generation of the universe and has always existed I
haven't a clue. Which view one takes would make some difference.
In this view Quality does indeed extend to the limits of the universe in
both time and space. Quality is the impetus that continually probes the
limits of possibility of the universe. In this view, one can see that as
Quality operates to produce physical static latches in the universe it
provide a greater and greater range of possibilities on which Dynamic
Quality can operate. The complexity of the universe increases with time.
Entropy is increasing. If we allow this situation to continue the universe
would eventually become cold and dead. However, the story of the universe
as it is now understood shows that hang-ups are occurring that tend to
recycle the energy and extend the life of the universe. The universe
exhibits the characteristics of a living organism. So does our galaxy, so
does our Earth, so does us. Current interpretation shows us a living
universe in which Quality is the guiding and organizing principle. Morality
and value are the expressions of the proper operation of Quality in the
universe.
The physical universe, then, is a process guided by Quality that cannot
fail to be moral and have value. This applies to humanity here on Earth
(even though most of us do not yet recognize it) because we are a
functioning part of the universe. We are a part of the physical expression
of the universe.
We now throw in sentience in the form of humanity into the mix. What
happens to value and morallity then?
One thing is that we are still subject to universal Quality and to be
moral we have to comport ourselves in conformity with that Quality.
A problem is that until recently we have not understood how the universe
works. We have been forced to use our own sentience to construct a value
system without enough information. As a consequence we have defined value
and morality solely in terms of humanity. That is why I tend to divide
Quality into universal Quality and sentient Quality. What is moral for one
may not be moral for the other. I think this in one of the weak spots of
Pirsig's MoQ that needs to be ironed out.
It seems to me that you view morality solely in human terms with perhaps
a bit of fundamentalism thrown in. What I think Horse is talking about is
more in line with universal morality.
Even if we say that we can ignore the universe because it is so vast and
ageless I don't think that we can apply the same criteria to the Earth. I
think that within some of the younger lifetimes in the squad some hard
decisions will have to be made. (Some are already being made)
We can already see that there is conflict between most of the religions
we practice and universal Quality and morality as they apply to the Earth.
Human (religious) morality and universal morality do not agree.
Platt writes:
For example, my death in the overall context of a holistic universe won't
mean much, but to me it's proximity would be rather significant. Or, in
Ken Clark's view, a meteor striking the earth that wiped out humanity
wouldn't be too bad because nonsentient Universal Quality is, in his
words, "all good."
Clark writes:
I think we need to recognize that a potential conflict exists between
universal Quality and sentient Quality. As Horse says, we need to look at
Morality in the context of universal Quality and use it as the basis for
defining sentient Quality. Sentient Quality will have to be subordinate to
universal Qulaity whether we wish it to be or not.
Platt writes:
Seems to me you have to put a boundary around holism somehow.
Otherwise, it just means pretty much whatever you want it to mean to
include whatever you want to include. If we can't agree on the
boundaries, then it seems to me we will always end up in relativity land
where your ideas about good and evil are just as good or bad as mine.
Clark writes:
Remember Platt, there is no evil except as it applies to humanity.
I think what the squad needs to do is to construct a human philosophy
that is based on, and functions in accordance with, universal Quality.
Particularly as universal Quality applies to the Biosphere.
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST