For Bo and all,
In a recent exchange between Bo and I, Bo Wrote:
"...As always I suspect that you by 'morality' mean ETHICS - which in SOM
is what you must do to be a good citizen, or - at a more elevated plane, but
somish to the hilt - to be a good person,and if this still is believed to be
the (only) QUALITY of the MOQ ...phew?"
This got me thinking.
Are ethics the only Quality of the MoQ??? The answer comes quickly... Of
course not. In the MoQ ethics are merely social values - the things one
must do to be a good citizen (an elementary formulation of what "ethics"
are, but we get the point). Now, outside the world of the MoQ, in
conventional language, "ethics" is equivalent to "morality". Fore example,
we might say that one who returns another's wallet with the money still
inside has behaved morally or or we might say they behave ethically--- same
thing. But in the MoQ, as Bo loves to point out to me, "morality" no longer
is equivalent to "ethics". Rather, "morality" is equivalent to "Quality".
And "Quality" is not the same as "Ethics" (and rightfully so IMHO). Now, I
have no objection to the evolution of terms, if "morality" and "ethics" are
no longer to be same (within the MoQ) then so be it. But now, it gets a bit
confusing....
And I'm not the only one who's confused by this:
"So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an
ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality
create life the MoQ postulates that they've done so because it's "better"
and that this definition of "betterness" - this begining response to Dynamic
Quality - is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can
be based." LILA pg. 181
Catch that? EVERYTHING is an ETHICAL activity. So with this quote we get :
Quality = Morality = Reality = Ethics (and we have no terms left to describe
only good old social right and wrong). So if "moral" goods are no longer is
the same thing as those social "ethical goods" which philosophers,
theologists, and the like have argued about forever than what is the
advantage of equating "morality" with "Quality"? Now
Morality/Ethics/Quality are just synonyms for "good" or "betterness". Of
course, it's ridiculous if you try to replace "betterness" with "ethics" in
any practical sense... "this sandwich is more ethical than the one I had
yesterday" "your solution to this math problem is more ethical than mine"
.....it's absurd and essentially meaningless.
I guess my ultimate problem with the Quality = Morality = Reality = Ethics =
(God knows what else) equation is that it robs us of four useful words by
blending them into one term... (a term that remains undefined except for
with examples, which isn't really defining at all) ...and we don't gain much
for our loss. Sure, we know now that Quality = Morality.... but Morality no
longer means what it used to.... it's just a synonym for Quality.... and so
is Ethical.... and so is Reality.... So "Quality = Morality" really just
breaks down to "Quality = Quality".... all of these formulations do, because
the original meanings of the words must be discarded in order for the
equation to make sense.
Enough for now,
All is Good, All is Ethical, All is Quality, All is Reality, All is Morality
(choose your favorite, but their all the same),
Rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST