[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 
 
> Hi Platt --
> 
> I asked why you thought freedom was "the only perceived good", because I
> know that Beauty has a high value for you.  Your answer made me realize
> that your concept of Freedom, like Value, extends to the insentient world
> beyond individual awareness.
> 
> > Freedom allows for the coalescence of elements into
> > units that reflect Beauty, like the freedom of a composer
> > to use a combination of notes to create a
> > beautiful symphony.
> 
> Again, you and Pirsig seem to be squeezing subjective consciousness out of
> the picture, as if all that mattered was the order of the cosmos and the
> "perfection" that (you believe) natural evolution ultimately leads to. 
> When I presented to you the analogy of insentient robotic creatures
> constructing a sophisticated world they're totally unaware of, I'd hoped it
> might demonstrate what is a truism to me: that there is no point to Value
> if it can't be experienced

Pirsig's answer and mine is that experience extends to entities that you 
call "insensate" such as particles, atoms, molecules, etc., the building 
blocks of the physical world. You have yet to explain how sensations 
evolve from your supposed insensate base.   

> Platt, you argue constantly for recognition of the individual as the
> world's decision-maker and prime mover.  But if the individual's ingenuity
> and energy serves no purpose other than transforming the shape of an
> insentient world, what's in it for man?  Where in this evolutionary process
> of thought and matter is the connection between the individual and his
> source?  How can this be a "moral system" without it?

Individuals are capable of responding to Dynamic Quality -- the Source of 
all things, great and small, including morality.

[Platt]
> > It is the human condition, unfortunately, to have to
> > settle for less than perfection. You know it exists,
> > but also know you can never attain it. Such is life.
> > Some whine and complain about it and dream of
> > Utopias. Most of us get over it.

[Ham] 
> So the struggle to move the world toward perfection is in vain, since we
> can never know the perfection we strive for.  For sure, something is
> lacking in this worldview; however, I won't try to argue you out of it, as
> it appears to be a belief system you're committed to.

What is lacking? Do you believe in the perfectability of man? If so, you 
side with Marx and his leftist acolytes. I'm sure that's not your 
intention. 

> Insamuch as you also believe the evolutionary world to be a moral system (a
> conclusion I must confess is beyond my understanding), you are troubled by
> the thought that anyone could be a moral relativist.  Let me requote the
> "confessional" section of Stephen Edington's 2003 sermon, just to refresh
> your thinking on this issue:
> 
> "The assumption being made about morality and codes of moral behavior here
> is that they are ultimately rooted in some source beyond human experience
> or human construction. It could be either in a Deity, however conceived; or
> in what our Enlightenment ancestors-Thomas Jefferson, for example-called
> 'Natural Law.'  This is a common, and quite understandable, assumption.
> What parent, for example, has not said, at some point of exasperation, to
> his or her child after running out of offering explanations for a parental
> command: 'Because I said so, and that's all the reason you need!'   Way
> back in my pre-parenthood days I made a promise to myself that I'd never
> say that to a kid of mine.  That turned out to be one of the more easily,
> and most frequently, broken promises I ever made to myself.
> 
> "It is not that big of a step, really, to generalize from this kind of
> common parental experience, or-on a larger scale-from our human attempts to
> formulate our truly necessary laws and codes of moral behavior and ethics,
> that morality itself ultimately must come from some kind of cosmic,
> supra-human 'Because I Said So.'   There may be debate over just who or
> what this 'I' is that is 'saying so' but the idea that Morality (with a
> capital 'M') ultimately derives from a fixed source that is beyond us is a
> commonly held one.  And there are those who firmly hold that to question,
> or to deviate from, such an idea is to teeter on the precipice of a very
> dangerous chasm called 'moral relativism.'
> 
> "Well, teetering or not, I'd like to make the case, the positive case, for
> moral relativism today, with my underlying point being that it is really
> the only kind of morality there is.  A related point is that it is the
> reality of moral relativism that calls us, as human beings, to moral
> responsibility and moral decision making."
> 
> In particular, I call your attention to the concluding sentence.  Can you
> not see that if morality were an "absolute standard" implanted in each of
> us like the values of Beauty and Perfection, there could be no Freedom for
> the individual?  Man would be bound to the course dictated by this
> standard. Instead of being free to choose and act as an autonomous
> individual, values would be imposed on man, much as instinctual responses
> determine the behavior of lesser creatures.

Haven't we had this discussion before? Since Beauty and Perfection are not 
the same for everybody, I don't see the problem. The question is who 
decides what you as an individual are going to be held accountable for? 
You say it's "consensus," but I don't want morality imposed on my by some 
mob. We've seen what horror that can bring. Just consider lynching and 
slavery for starters. 

[Platt]
> > If invented by humans, then humans can change
> > the code. Being a human, I can change the code.
> > So can you. So can the guy over there behind the
> > tree. Is this what you mean? What human authority
> > determines the the excesses and offenses of social
> > behavior? Not Bin Laden I hope.
>    [snip]
> > So headhunting among some tribes in Borneo is morally OK with you? Or
> > setting off bombs in trains in an effort to make the world a more "moral"
> > place? I hope that's not what you mean, but your "morality is relative"
> > statement leads me to that conclusion.
> 
> Now you're beginning to sound like your friend Arlo.  As an invention of
> individuals in a civilized society, moral standards are adopted by
> consensus, in the same way that civil laws are passed and judges are voted
> for.  This is what makes for a free society.  Could Moses or our Founding
> Fathers have predicted that bio-technology would one day create human cells
> in a test tube that could produce marketable brain tissue?  Obviously, new
> possibilities of human behavior are always emerging in a changing world,
> and the standards of morality must change accordingly.  There is no such
> thing as a "fixed morality" in a relational world, and man is free to
> choose his path to Freedom within the constraints of his social order.

See comment about "mob morality" above. And pray tell, who decides the 
moral standards that make up what you deem a "civilized society?" Marx 
would argue that the morality of capitalism is far from "civilized." We 
know the horrors his followers inflicted on society.

Sorry to end on that note, but I see no other outcome when morality is 
thought to be "relative."

A very Merry Christmas to you and yours, Ham -- 

Platt