Bobby,
You argument drove me away quite badly, not neccesarily for how critical
it was of many, many people, or for the number of cliches used to represent
those people's thoughts, but rather for how wholly empty it is of proof.
Yes, you have a lot of theoretical thought here, "If we make a wrong
choice then our ability to discern between that right and wrong which allows
us to make right choices is detrimented," "Nature does not evidence us with
the rightness of our choice," and so on. What I would like to know is the
following: Where do you get these ideas from? Surely you are a reader of
Pirsig, otherwise you would not be on this forum (yet I am new here so I
don't know). As somewhat of a "disciple" in Pirsig's exemplified style I
have to cite you on all of this hypothetical "truths." Not once have you
shown that what you are saying here is anything more than heresay, someone
else's ideas which you have not run through the test of practicality.
> There are thousands and thousands of excuses that we can
> think of to justify and support an amoral attitude. And
> you know why ? Because to take a stand is a frightening
> affair since there is NOTHING in this world or the
> universe or even beyond it that can assure oneself that
> what one chooses to do is the Right thing. One is all
> alone here - NO ONE else can actually tell oneself Right
> from Wrong.
Your first presumption in censuring the mystics, the
'holier-than-thous,' the DQ/SQ believers, and many others is that they
actually care about being right or wrong. In going into these forms of
meditation and studying Quality they are generally acknowledging that they
believe "right and wrong" to simply be a subconscious Quality evaluation
that varies from person to person. The right and wrong you seem to be
talking about is the "2+2=5" right and wrong of the scientific world.
Believers in the MOQ and Eastern religions don't take up their claims to
avoid responcibility for their grades in school or mistakes on the job!
These beliefs are taken up because they offer the believer the highest
quality of experience, they offer them what they believe to be the correct
perception of reality, one that eases the problems of life and clarifies
many social, biological and moral dillemas.
Now I also censured someone in this piece. You, for not exemplifying
your ideas. Let me protect myself from the same criticism. A part of your
essay critisizes those who are afraid to "take a stand." Well I must say,
this flys in the face of my beliefs rather strongly, yet I do not claim that
I am "right" or "wrong," merely that the following belief has the highest
quality for me, and likely many others. To take a stand is to enforce your
value-decoder on someone else. My way of deciphering the Quality of my
world is likely independent of anyone else, considering the number of values
I must discern in looking at my own foot. To attempt to force my way of
looking at feet, or blaming, or freeing from blame, potential victims of
capital punishment, is of low Quality to me and many others. If I were to
say that Timothy McVeigh's brother deserves to die because of "guilt by
association" (I do not even know if he has a brother) and was so ambitious
as to say that I would press in this belief until everyone saw I was in "the
right" than I would be forcing my Quality views on others. Would Brother
McVeigh be guilty? In my eyes, yes. In everyone else's eyes, who knows.
The point is this: right and wrong in non-scientific fields cannot be
defined, even if Brother McVeigh killed every innocent child and woman on
this earth, due to the fact that there is no given quantitative way of
assigning merit to moral situations. We may call people "right" and "wrong"
when their answers are such in a math problem because by consigning
themselves to the problem they admit they acknowledge the Quality of its
single right answer.
I am beggining to be very confused now so I must stop ;). Please
respond in earnest, thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Dillon" <dillon121@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_focus@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:39 AM
Subject: MF : Free Will , SELF and MORALS
> self-focusers,
>
> A quote you won't find in LILA :
>
> "What is Right, Phaedrus, and what is Wrong, we need to
> ask ourselves that - ALL THE TIME."
>
> And not only that, we as human beings are condemmed to
> take a stand, one way or another. To have an amoral or
> indifferent attitude is demeaning to us as human beings.
>
> Sure that choice is also available, but then are there no
> consequences for every choice made? The easiest thing we
> can do is to pretend that we have no choice anyway or to
> say that its best to let nature take its course, and that
> its all a cosmic dance, and we are only puppets in this
> interplay between DQ and SQ..or this thing or that thing is
> just an illusion. Or the 'holier than thou' attitude that
> on reaching a certain 'level' of enlightenment all these
> issues like morals, free will, self etc are mere paradoxes
> cojured up by lower minds that have no idea that we are all
> one and the same and that what we call 'self' is only an
> illusion. Or that it is all destiny. Or that we can have
> no real choice, because we don't have the freedom to choose
> - its all taken care of by either Dynamic Quality or Static
> Quality ! Or that its all a language or a syntax problem.
>
> So take the path of least risk - convince yourself that
> you have no choice - that there is no choice to make - for
> then you are responsible for nothing because you made no
> choice, Right ?
>
> Or take up meditation. There again you will find exquisite
> bliss and peace where all these questions dissolve and you
> will be bothered no more - ignore everything - ignorance
> is bliss. The world is just perfect the way it is - for
> in everything there is unity - you just experienced it,
> didn't you ? And in the unity of everything, nothing can
> be Right or Wrong, can it ? Enlightenment !
>
> There are thousands and thousands of excuses that we can
> think of to justify and support an amoral attitude. And
> you know why ? Because to take a stand is a frightening
> affair since there is NOTHING in this world or the
> universe or even beyond it that can assure oneself that
> what one chooses to do is the Right thing. One is all
> alone here - NO ONE else can actually tell oneself Right
> from Wrong.
>
> And to take a stand also means to account for the possi-
> bility that one could be wrong - even in not making a
> choice. And to make a wrong choice will have its con-
> sequences. But these consequences will not be immediate
> -these will take a long long time to manifest physically.
> The most likely consequence of a wrong choice is that
> we will actually feel rewarded for our choice ! We will
> congratulate ourselves for having made the Right move !
>
> Nature is not interested in churning out machines where
> every human action will have an immediate physical
> moral reaction. So we cant even know immidiately that we
> made a wrong choice! But something will have changed.
>
> What will have changed is our ABILITY, our POWER to
> choose Right from wrong, it will have DEPLETED.
> And so the next choice will then MORE LIKELY to be a
> wrong one, which will then drain our power further..
> till we have no more of it left...and we end up making
> all the wrong choices. Rather we will have forfieted
> all our choices - a sitting duck - a slave of our
> circumstances. We will have turned into a machine.
>
> So ask yourself and yourself alone this:
>
> Can we say then that we have a choice of no choice ?
> Can there be choice without freedom ?
> Can there be a Right or Wrong without choice ?
> Can there be choice without consequences and
> responsibility ?
> Can there be responsibility without a self who is
> responsible ?
> What comes first ? A chicken or an egg ?
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST