Murdock, Mark (Mark.Murdock@Unisys.Com)
Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:51:05 +0100
Good points all and great rhetoric, Ken!
I agree with your concerns. When I read your post the concept of
banished from the Garden of Eden came to mind. I'm sure it's not
original, but it never crystallized in those terms for me. Indeed, we
are woefully out of tune with our biosphere, it's almost unnatural, as
if we're not "of" this planet in many respects. Lost sheep.
> You say that environmental values cannot take
> precedence over legitimate social and intellectual values. My position
> is
> that there are no legitimate social and intellectual values which are
> not
> subordinate to biological (Gaia) values.
>
We have no moral right to destroy the environment. None whatsoever. In
this way, Gaia's values are morally superior to those destructive social
and intellectual values. Lila is clear on this and it also is
intuitive.
When the planet is in crisis, when its survival is in question, then
social and intellectual values shall be in its service. What's good for
the environment is paramount for our lives depend on it.
Now, imagine a time when we have transitioned from crisis to a more
symbiotic relationship with Gaia. Then social values which do not upset
this stewardship are Good. Gaia's needs would not preclude our
gathering into tribes or families or towns or cities? Gaia's needs
would not preclude language and art and religion and so on.
So yes, in crisis periods, Gaia's moral right to survival supersedes all
others. I think Lila supports this too. But when survival is not
threatened, we have the moral right tend to each other.
Here is perhaps where we might diverge, however, because I am not sure
what your spiritual beliefs are. I would contend that we are here for
spiritual reasons, for each other, and need only tend to the planet in
support of these aims. Is it your belief that tending to Gaia is the
SOLE aim of man? That our spiritual pursuit is Gaia herself? If that
is the case, are we needed at all?
> You say that if we believe in Quality and and the idea that we
> experience
> it before reason, then we believe we know what is good. In your case I
> believe this is true but we must remember that Quality operates for
> everyone, the bad folks as well as the good folks, and also the good
> folks
> who do not yet understand that anything that is bad for Gaia is bad
> for us
> as well as all of the life processes on Earth.
>
This is our lot in life, Ken, we are all at various stages of awareness.
It's up to the ones who catch of glimpse of the high country to come
down and show others the way. Are you familiar with Zen koan about the
lost bull? I think Pirsig mentions it. If I remember, it's a story
about enlightenment. The first stage is to be aware that our bull is
lost, that we are lacking in enlightenment. Then we seek the bull. We
travel far and wide. Finally we find him and ride him triumphantly
home. But the story does not end there. It ends when the man gives up
his farm and walks into town to help others.
Our society is in need of these spiritual leaders. The Church and State
separation is no longer useful. Spiritual leaders would have power in
all human events. These men and women would judge in the name of the
Good. I describe them as spiritual because above all we place faith in
the Good -- and it is a faith. It can be intellectualized, but these
rationales are always in support of a feeling which comes first.
Truth is subjugated to the Good. Science then is in service to these
leaders. When science says, "we're not convinced the problems of the
environment are man-made" then these leaders look to their hearts for
the answer.
It's a scary notion to a civilization weaned on Truth, but this is the
transformation that is necessary. Truth is not the ultimate reality.
What's Good is always True, but what's True is not necessarily Good.
ZMM 101.
> You say that each of
> Pirsig's value levels has the moral right to change the level below
> it. I
> say that this is only true within the context and understanding of the
> operation of Gaia and that it is this lack of understanding that makes
> the
> human race generally immoral with regard to Gaia.
>
I agree. It is immoral to destroy that which nurtures and sustains you.
> I believe that Pirsig's philosophical construct is the best thing
> that
> has come down the pike, but I also believe that it has been
> constructed on
> very weak and egocentric human reed which needs a lot of wisdom to
> make it
> work properly. A very good advance in human understanding but a long
> way to
> go.
>
Agreed. The power of Pirsig's philosophy is its secularism. Religion
has divided our world. Championing one over another leads to war and
hatred. Yet we need a belief system that can only be called a religion
to survive. We need to lead the flock back to faith in Good, in God.
Lila offers a path back that appeals to the disenfranchised of the
world, the people who see truth as the ultimate reality, the
intellectually-minded, the victims of hypocrisy and so on. Lila is a
compelling argument for the atheist and agnostic.
Long way to go, yes. Ultimately, I hope to see common themes from all
religions on which we can unite. Obviously any belief system should
contain both static and Dynamic qualities to allow for evolution.
Religion today is frightened of this dynamic. "Nothing scares the
Bishop more than the presence of a Saint in the congregation." Pirsig
pointed to the blueprint of such a belief system but it's up to the
world to construct it.
So, I see Pirsig's philosophy as a secular compass which points towards
spiritual healing. All of this benefits Gaia. Every last bit of it.
Seeing ourselves as connected to one another and all being composed of
the same stuff enables us to transform from planet exploiters to planet
stewards.
> Can you see now why I am so concerned about the morals issue.
> I have used the term Gaia to eliminate some words but I think any
> term
> that you wish to use that encompasses the biosphere will not alter the
> meaning.
> It will save a lot of time if we speak plainly to each other instead
> of
> speaking elliptically to spare each others feelings. This is what I
> have
> done and I invite you to do the same.
>
Your candor is much appreciated.
M.
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST